"^Jr 


-^       %a3AINIV3\AV^ 


i>5  A      ,^      V.    'Z-       '■>  ft      /'      v    'Z. 

Cx:  ~^         Cxi 


> 


•I 


v: 


J\     V   ^      ^  .-f  f     J^   2? 


^<?Aav}i9n-^^'^      ^^Aavaan-i^N"^ 


, — )       '-^ 
3>       r: 


■>/ 


I 


'^<!/0dnV3'JO'^ 


■  ^     -^^ 


% 


o5 


Q      —  f  ^ 


•"<'^'     %a]AiNa3\\v 


rs^ 


>i 


<  < 

0>>       %0JI"IV3'JO>' 


f-rj 


m 


^NN"^'      ^'CAiivaaiii^'^ 


:v(riMi\TRV^ 


>- 

CC 

< 

CC 

-7'  O 


» .inc  -ivirrir, 


o 


O    -1- 


:^ 


^ 


CC 


.^WEUNIVERS/A 


'A- 


X 


-s^t-LlBRARYOr 


^ 


A 


1    f< — ■  ^ 


33 


'^<!/0jnV3JO'^ 


^^OFCALIF0% 


%a]AiNn-]WV 


'^^/i^jAiiSiVjWV^ 


^^^UIBRARY/V 


%ojnv3jo-^ 


^.OFCALIFO% 

DC 


^<^ 


^c'Abvaan-^^'^ 


cr. 
< 


^WE•UNIVER.V//, 


:a 


^sVslOSAS'CElfjv^ 


•~1 


o 


'^ 


CC 
33 


^=3 


%il3AIN(13Wv 


-< 


^v^^inVANCElfj^ 


CC 

cc:; 


.^ 


"'i'i13DNV-S01^^" 


_  CO 

%a3AIN,1 3W^^^ 


.OF 


Cr 


r^../ 


>- 


^\^E•UKIVER% 


^ 


c^^ 


C: 


|— 1^1)| 


VI' 


o 


J  *_■  J  I  1   »  ^     J  V 


'^^  .^- 


TITr 


\~t  J'  \  1 1 '  1 1 J I 


^Til^'jNVM]]^^         ''^/J>il3AlNa  31V> 


aMEIBRARYQ^ 


y^ 


/     M 


>^ 


'^■<!/03llVJJO'^' 


C9 


OFCAIIFO/?^^^        ^^.OF-CAIIF0/?4>^ 


v< 


r-n 

r—  ui-i 


^<?Aavaan#'      ^<:^a 


J  -^     f-^  i  S 

/  g     -^  ,  I  -< 

1>^^       %a3AINn3WV^ 


^^^URP^RY/?/         ^>^.MIBRARY6//: 


^ 


1     1 


;>^ 


^(!/03llV3-jO-^       ^.!/03llV>JO>^ 


A\^EIJNIVFRi/^        ^^v;lOSANr.Flff>^ 


<rii33Nvsov"^^^~ 


>- 


/JNVSOl^^^        '%iJ3AINIl-3Wv 


^AiivaaiH^"^'     ^(^AavaHiid 


m' 


'a)  ^ ' 

-V  o  , 

>  z:;  ' 

'=.  •<  ■ 

-n  i— ' 

O  u^ 

=3  -:; 


'ilJONVSr 


>>. 


.•^^.UBRARYQ^^ 

^' 

-n 

..,\4ns-ANr,fi/ 

<: 

;a3 

<: 

-n 

5^,       : 

%0- 


s^ 


/ 


'^J^ii^ONVsoi^'"^     '^-^imhmw 


k\EUNIVER% 

L5      ~ 


Nw*^ 


O 


'  o LIJ    \ I  ^  1  I    J  (  » ^ 


■   /  w.i   I    vj  \j  1  I    J   ■ 


<^ 


\\^f- 


Kjnrnr,. 


vj^lOSANCELi 


1-lib; 


V 


ir"^  ^' 


Of 


;^ 


o-v^ 


,^MEUMIVFR.V/, 
a-.  > 

>-  ^    ' 


.^ 


O 


■  i  ^ 


.^X\l-1!PRARY/)^        ^l-llRRARYi 


^      ^  ^ 


'^'<^Ojnv3-:io>'      -'^c^ojiivjjt 


'iVAQVaUl 


,  ^\\E  UiS'lVER^-//^ 
>-  ' 


\>;10SANCEI£;^ 


O 


•—  < 


'^Aa]AlNn-3WV^ 


^.OFCALIPO/?^^       ^ 
> 


OFCALIFO/ 


-J' 


iV^ 


^..--^   L.A.vV^  ^ 


\\w 


\  'V   >  i-rri 


%_ 


^EUNIVER%        ^s.>;lOSANGELfj, 


-       <: 


^. 


( 


,   r      i    IDTl    '    flV  y-l    . 


ir,  '^-^ 


/■ 


•  './■..'J  I  I   ■J    H  v 


AWE  UNIVERJ/^,        ^^^lOSAS'CEU 


y^ 


.-ju..M:.,i-^^      %a]AiNa]\ 


-4,0FCALIF0/?^        ^.OF-CAIIFO/?^  ^^\\F  UNIVFRi-/^,        ^^K-lOSvVNCEli 


v:. 


n 


v^. 


rn 


>•       =; 

-n  <— ' 

O  u_ 


^(^Aavaaii-i""^^         <riij'jN\soi^''"^      %a3AiNii]i 


^Vllr: 


;= 


in; 


^^^l•llBRARYQ^ 


^^\\E■UNIVER% 

>-  -n 

<: 

Or 

ec. 


Or 
C. 


>;lOSANCElfj>  ^v^l•llBRARYQ/:         ^^^VLIBRARY 


?>       c^ 


''"■^/iajAiNn^wv 


-< 


-   >i 


v>JO>' 


Survey   of 
The  Schools  of   Lawrence   Township 

Mercer  County,  New  Jersey 


Directed  by 


MIL 


N.  L.  ENGELHARDT 

Professor  of  Education 

Wtati)txi  ColIegeJColumfaia  ^Hniberffitp 

New  York  City 

And 


E.   S.  EVENDEN 

Associate  Professor  of  Education 

^eacljerg  College,  Columbia  ?Hnibergitp 

New  York  City 


J  O  ^  O  «w 


The  following  members  of  the  Major  Professional  Course  in 
Educational  Administration  in  the  College  Year  1921-1922  assisted 
in  the  work  of  this  study: 


Miss  Mary  Kerr,  Mrs.  C.  W. 

and 

Messrs.  C.  D.  Anderson 
R.  O.  Bagby 
J.  F.  Barnhill 
F.  V.  Bermejo 
James  Boyle 
O.  S.  Bradshaw 
W.  H.  Bristow 
R.  H.  Brown 
F.  Cayco 
C.  C.  Clark 
F.  DeVeyra 
R.  B.  Fore 
H.  C.  Fries 
T.  A.  Hendricks 
O.  E.  Hertzberg 


Flemming 

G.  Howard,  Jr. 
A.  C.  Humphreys 
W.  M.  Land 
G.  A.  Neff 
T.  O.  Oliver 
J.  G.  Ragsdale 
O.  A.  See 
R.  K.  Speer 
L.  G.  Stier 
R.  O.  Stoops 
G.  Tabunar 
D.  Weidler 

H.  WiLMOT 

O.  C.  Wrigley 


3'5'i 

1 

PART 

I 

^ 


^ 


«4 


POPULATION  STUDIES 

Lawrence  Township  is  located  in  the  southern  portion  of  Mercer 
County,  New  Jersey.  The  southern  section  of  the  township  borders 
on  the  outskirts  of  the  city  of  Trenton.  The  township  is  a  residence 
and  rural  community,  many  of  the  inhabitants  of  which  are  engaged 
in  agricultural  pursuits.  Because  of  the  electric  railroad  transpor- 
tation facilities,  the  township  has  become  in  part  a  suburban  resi- 
dential community  for  Trenton. 

In  Table  I  will  be  found  the  total  population  of  Lawrence  Town- 
ship for  the  United  States  Census  periods  1890  to  1920  with  the  per- 
centages of  increase  in  population  over  each  of  the  three  decades  and 
comparison  with  the  percentages  of  increases  for  the  state  of  New 
Jersey  and  Mercer  County.  The  population  of  Lawrence  Township 
has  grown  more  rapidly  than  the  population  of  the  state  as  a  whole 
for  the  last  two  decades  and  also  more  rapidly  than  the  total  popula- 
tion of  Mercer  County  itself. 


\ 


•o 


TABLE  I 

Population  op  New    Jersey,   Mercer  County  and  Lawrence  Township 

From  1890  to  1920 


Per  Cent  of  Increase  foi 

Each  Decade 

Year 

Slate  of 
New  Jersey 

Per  Cent 
.      of 
Increase 

Mercer 
County 

Per  Cent 

of 
Increase 

Lawrence 
Toivnship 

Per  Cent 

of 
Increase 

1890 
1900 
1910 
1920 

1,444,933 
1,883,669 
2,.537,167 
3,1.55,900 

30.4 
34.7 
24.4 

79,978 

95,365 

125,657 

159  881 

19.2 
31.8 

27.2 

1481 
1555 
2522 
3686 

5.0 
62.1 
46.2 

There  are  thirteen  townships  and  boroughs  in 
Mercer  County,  Of  these,  Hamilton  Town- 
ship surpassed  Lawrence  Township  in  increase 
in  population  for  the  decade  1900-1910  and 
Ewing  and  Hamilton  Townships  surpassed  Lawrence  Township  in 
the  increase  in  population  from  1910-1920.     Previous  to  1890,  six  of 


Growth  in  Townships 
and  Boroughs  of 
Mercer  County 


2  Survey  of  Public  School  System 

the  townships  of  Mercer  County  were  decreasing  in  population.  Only 
one  township  showed  a  decrease  in  the  decade  1910-1920.  The  in- 
crease in  Lawrence  Township  is  no  doubt  due  to  the  tendency  toward 
suburban  development  in  our  American  cities  and  the  great  change 
which  has  taken  place  in  transportation  facilities.  With  further 
progress  in  the  development  of  the  means  of  transportation,  Law- 
rence Township  will  continue  to  increase  in  population.  With  this 
increase  in  population  will  come  the  problem  of  caring  for  a  larger 
number  of  school  children.  It  is  desirable  that  the  nature  and  extent 
of  the  school  problem  be  anticipated  for  the  future  because  of  present 
overcrowded  conditions  in  the  Lawrence  Township  schools. 

The  growth  of  population  in  the  townships   and  boroughs  of 
Mercer  County  is  presented  in  Table  IL 
„,     „.     '.,     .         On  Map  No.  I  have  been  given  the  approximate  resi- 

,  r>        ;    •  dential    locations    01    each    lamily    lor    Lawrence 

of  ropulation  _,         1  •         t        -n    1  j     1  1 

iownship.     it   will    be    noted    that    the    greatest 

density  of  population  is  in  the  Slackwood  section  which  borders  upon 
Trenton,  the  Eldrldge  Park  section  and  the  Lawrenceville  section. 
All  three  of  these  sections  lie  at  points  of  vantage  on  the  suburban 
trolley  lines  running  from  Trenton  to  Princeton.  Aside  from  these  three 
concentration  points,  the  remainder  of  the  population  of  the  township 
is  evenly  distributed  upon  farms  of  various  sizes. 
_,,  ^.  On  Map  No.  i,  the  township  has  been  divided  into  three 
r  r,  divisions  for  the  purpose  of  distributing  farms  according 

to  size.  Division  I  is  that  section  of  the  township  north 
of  Lawrenceville.  Division  II  is  that  section  to  the  east  of  Lawrence- 
ville, including  Clarksville,  Princesville  and  Bakers  Basin.  Division 
III  contains  the  urban  communities  of  Lawrenceville,  Eldridge  Park 
and  Slackwood  in  which  approximately  three-fourths  of  the  popula- 
tion of  the  township  reside. 

According  to  data  furnished  by  the  assessor  of  the  township, 
2,685  people  live  in  the  three  urban  communities,  while  1,000  people 
are  living  in  the  rural  sections.  Changes  In  the  size  of  farms  over  a 
period  of  seven  years  indicate  that  the  variation  in  population  in  the 
rural  sections  has  been  only  slight  during  recent  years. 

In  Table  III  it  will  be  seen  that  very  few  changes  were  made 
either  in  the  size  or  number  of  farms  in  Divisions  I  and  II  in  the  seven 
year  period  from  1914  to  1921.  On  the  other  hand,  38  farms,  or  a 
total  of  388  acres,  have  been  cut  into  town  lots  in  Division  III  during 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 


CO 

W 

O 

P 

o 

« 

o 

fq 

o 

;? 

<; 

w 

Oi 

►-( 

M 

Oi 

r/5 

'A 

K 

^ 
^ 

< 

H 

fe 

z 

U 

w 

Q 

» 

n 

N 

H-t 

h 

« 

Ix. 

» 

I— 1 

P 

Ph 

<! 

M 

tn 

« 

H 

W 

O 

> 

O 

Ik 

t« 

o 

w 

CO 

K 

H 

W 

-< 

•-S 

^ 

ft. 

W 

fS 

^ 

f^ 

;« 

t-t 

H 

rfl 

2; 

r« 

P 

< 

o 

U 

o 

<! 

« 

H 

P^ 

02 
<1 

o 

M 

« 

U 

S: 

1— ( 

b 

o 

H 

2; 

E<3 

U 

ts 

w 

Ph 

dsr)dji09(j 

r-i 

0/ 

dSVdJLOUl 

<©    CO 

00    lO 

(N 

t- 

(N 

C5 

^ 

lO   lO 

% 

"*     TiH     <n' 

"*  c^i 

CO 

CO 

id 

d 

0^1 

d  CO 

CO   00   ^ 

(M 

■*! 

CO 

1—1 

ci 

CO 

o  o  •* 

O)    05 

CD 

UO 

I> 

tH 

C5 

1-H    C5 

CO 

t^    00    t^ 

CO  "* 

00 

CD 

1—1 

(M 

00 

CD    00 

0^6  J 

t^ 

Tt<    lO    O 

CO    iM 

CD 

05 

Oi 

^ 

(M 

1-H     CO 

CO    -*    (N 

T-l    CO 

CO 

»o 

1—) 

05 

1-H     r-l 

1— j 

1— ( 

1-H 

9SV9J.09(J 

CD 

lO 

CO 

% 

to 

1— t 

o 

dsvauouj 

CO 

1>  o  ^ 

iC 

1—1 

t^ 

"* 

rH 

03 

% 

IC 

i-i    05    I> 

ci 

(m' 

1— ( 

CO 

oi 

■51H 

Tt<  00 

CD 

CO 

C^ 

CO 

1—1 

05    05    C5 

CO    1-H 

(N 

<M 

CD 

00 

lO 

O    (M 

■* 

CO    05    t^ 

t^  l> 

CI 

(M 

CO 

t^ 

1-H 

O     Tt< 

0161 

O) 

00   CO    00 

o  ^ 

lO 

l> 

1— t 

1—1 

00 

O    CO 

1— 1  l>  1-1 

1-1   CO 

(M 

iO 

1— 1 

CD 

1-H     rH 

9SV9U09Q 

•^         1-1 

Tf< 

00 

% 

o 

1—1 

CO 

9SV9U0UJ 

lO 

o 

I> 

CD 

00 

% 

1—1 

lO 

'* 

-* 

00 

t--i 

cj 

(M 

1— ( 

^H 

(M 

^ 

CO    "*    05 

o  o 

lO 

CO 

CT> 

lO 

!>. 

t^    05 

Ci 

CO   CD    T}< 

CC    CD 

lO 

CO 

05 

lO 

o 

lO    t^ 

006  T 

CO 

CO     I-H     t^ 

05    CO 

•o 

t> 

00 

05 

CO 

i-H    (M 

T-l      Tt      1-1 

CO 

1—1 

CO 

CO 

1-H      T-( 

9SV3U09(J 

CO 

i-H    00 

0/ 

lO 

CD 

CO 

■Oi 

C^       T^' 

1—1 

1—1 

lO 

(M 

^H 

9SV9J,0UJ 

r-   lO   rtH 

CO 

1-H 

% 

OJ    CO    CO 

CO 

c<i 

(M    IM    CO 

CD 

^H 

O  CO  «-o 

o 

1— ( 

00 

iM 

o 

CO 

CD    O 

00 

(M    CO   t^ 

lO 

00 

00 

C^ 

^ 

IC 

(M    (M 

0681 

00 

1-1    ^    00 

t^ 

^ 

lO 

^ 

CO 

'^ 

1-H    CO 

CO     TjH     1-1 

CO 

1— t 

CO 

lO 

1-H    r-l 

dSV9J09(J 

CD    00 

1—1 

1-H    (M 

% 

CO 

^ 

^'  ci 

9SV9M)UJ 

1—1 

CD 

o 

CO 

t^ 

00 

% 

CO 

Tt^' 

1—1 

th 

d 

T-H 

■* 

1—1 

CO 

<r> 

CO 

(M    O  lO 

(M 

rH 

o 

05 

o 

1-1    CD 

0881 

o 

1-1    t^    lO 

CO 

t^ 

o 

CO 

1-H 

00   OJ 

1— i 

■^    CO   CO 

■* 

1— ( 

(M 

1-H 

05 

!M    CO 

(M    CO    --H 

rtn 

CO 

CO 

1— ( 

1-H    1-H 

CD 

t-  t^  l> 

CO 

1— ( 

00 

00 

'^ 

^     00 

0181 

1—1 

t^  1-1  ■* 

t^ 

>o 

o 

CO 

t^ 

O    CI 

C5 

■*    ^    CO 

(M 

(M 

r- 

T-H 

00 

Ci    rt< 

(M    IC    1-1 

Tj^ 

(M 

(M 

1-H 

1-H    1-H 

^ 

« 

P3  pq 

bl 

n 

o 

CO 

g 

ilton 
tstown- 

well-B 
well 

CJ 

c 

01 

1 
o 

b£ 

S 

o 

OJ 

o 

lington 
Winds( 

'^  ^  l2  -kS  kS  ►S  S  Sac  S; 

Wash 
West 

Survey  of  Public  School  System 


The    Approx  'innaT^    (^* 
of  cocff    fam 


®   RazeJalt 


MAP  NO.  1. 


Lawrence  Township,    New  Jersey  5 

the  same  period  of  years.  During  this  period  of  seven  years,  there 
has  been  practically  no  change  in  the  size  of  farms  in  Division  I.  In 
Division  II,  the  median  farm  has  been  reduced  in  size  from  31  acres 
to  23  acres.  In  Division  III,  the  number  of  farms  has  decreased  from 
138  to  95,  but  the  median  farm  has  increased  in  size  from  14  to  24 
acres.  There  is  a  tendency  toward  increase  in  size  of  farms  for  the 
entire  township  for  this  same  period  of  time,  the  median  farm  having 

TABLE  III 

Showing  Comparative  Number  of  Farms  for  Years  1914  and    1921,  Dis- 
tributed According  to  Size  and  Division 


Division  I 

Division  II 

Division    III 

Section  North 

Section  East 

Southwest  Section 

Number  of 

of 

of 

including   Law- 

Totals 

Farms 

Lawrenceville 

Lawrenceville 

renceville,  Eldridge 
Park  &  Slackwood 

Size  in  Acres 

1914 

1921 

1914 

1921 

1914 

1921 

1914 

1921 

0  to      1. 

1 

7 

2 

8 

4 

16 

7 

31 

1   "       4.99 

7 

3 

8 

6 

38 

11 

53 

20 

5  "      9.99 

7 

5 

7 

8 

20 

6 

34 

19 

10  "    24.99 

11 

14 

13 

13 

23 

15 

47 

42 

25  "    49.99 

14 

13 

4 

7 

17 

10 

35 

30 

50  "    99.99 

18 

18 

16 

12 

24 

24 

58 

54 

100  "  149.99 

13 

15 

6 

6 

8 

9 

27 

30 

150  "  199.99 

3 

3 

4 

3 

3 

3 

10 

9 

200  and  over 

2 

2 

2 

3 

1 

1 

5 

6 

Totals 

76 

80 

62  ■ 

66 

138 

95 

276 

241 

Medians 

46.4 

46.2 

31.3 

22.7 

14.6 

24.5 

24 

32.1 

changed  from  24  acres  in  1914  to  32  acres  in  1921.  Part  of  this  in- 
crease in  the  median  farm  is  due  to  the  fact  that  many  of  the  farms 
that  were  eliminated  in  Division  III  were  the  smaller  farms. 

Of  the  216  farms  which  in  1914  had  5  or  more  acres,  the  median 
size  was  44  acres.  In  1921,  there  were  only  120  farms  with  5  or  more 
acres  and  the  median  size  was  51  acres.  These  facts,  coupled  with 
the  small  number  of  changes  in  ownership  of  farm  property  in  the  last 


6 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 


seven  years  and  also  with  the  small  number  of  farms  run  by  tenants, 

are  further  indications  that  the  farming  population  tendencies  are 

rather  stabilized  for  this  township.     In  1914  to  1921,  only  61  farms 

changed   ownership   and   only   38   farms    were   being   managed    by 

tenants  in  1921. 

rr-j     ^  ■  ■         The  New  Tersev  State  Census  of  loic;  shows  that 

1  he  Lomposihon     ,,  rrv      r    1  '    1     •         r  t  Vt.  ,  .     . 

,  p        ,     .  oO%  01  the  population  of  Lawrence  Township  is 

American  born,  the  remainder  being  made  up  of 
English,  Germans,  Italians  and  Irish.  According  to  the  same  census 
report,  the  census  was  divided  into  the  following  occupational  groups: 
professional,  66;  commercial  pursuits,  79;  skilled  laborers,  371;  un- 
skilled, 413;  farmers,  146,  and  all  other  occupations,  185. 


The  Present  Schools  of  Lawrence  Township 

In  January  1922,  Lawrence  Township  was  being  served  by  five 
schools,  with  a  school  enrolment  and  school  facilities  as  shown  in 
Table  IV. 

TABLE  IV 

The  Number  of  Rooms  and  Enrolment  in  the  Lawrence  Township 
Schools  November  30,  1921 


Schools 

No.  of 
Rooms 

Enrolment 

Average  Enrolment 
per  Room 

Slackwood 
Eldridge  Park 
Lawrenceville 
Clarksville 
Rosedale 

8 

5* 

5** 

1 

1 

320 

186 

183 

19 

24 

40 
37 
36 
19 

24 

Total  Number 

20 

732 

36.6 

*Including  portable. 
**Including  room  in  fire  hall. 

Slackwood  School  is  near  Trenton  City  and  serves  the  children  of 
this  suburban  district.  There  is  an  eight-room  building  here  in  which 
eight  teachers  are  employed.  Eldridge  Park  is  about  one  mile  north 
of  Slackwood  on  the  electric  line.  This  is  a  four-room  building  with 
portable  attached.  The  teaching  force  is  made  up  of  five  members. 
Lawrenceville  School  is  located  in  the  community  of  Lawrenceville 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey  7 

and  is  near  the  two  electric  lines.  This  building  has  four  rooms  and 
a  room  above  the  tire  house  is  used  for  the  reception  class  and  first 
grade.  Five  teachers  are  employed  here.  Rosedale,  in  the  northern 
part  of  the  township,  and  Clarksville,  in  the  extreme  eastern  section, 
have  one-room  schools  with  one  teacher  each. 

„  ,     .       _  rr^      1     No  school  census  figures  are  available  for  the 

Relation  Between  1  otal  ,   ,  .  .       .  ,      , 

^       ,    .  jn   77-       purposes  oi  this  study,  smce  no  school  census 

Fopulatton  and  rubuc      .        ,        .     ^  „  ,  .         _     _,  ,  , 

_,  ,      ,  _        7    •  IS  taken  m  Lawrence   lownship.     In   iable 

School  ropulation  ,.        ,,.       .,  i-ii  j- 

V,  public  school  population  has  been  used  in- 
stead of  the  school  census  figures  in  order  to  discover  whether  there 
was  being  maintained  a  rather  constant  ratio  between  total  popula- 
tion and  public  school  population.  In  this  table, the  total  population  for 
each  five  year  period  from  1900  to  1920  and  the  school  enrolment  for 
each  year  of  the  same  period  are  given.  It  will  be  seen  that  the  per- 
centage between  public  school  enrolment  and  total  school  population 

TABLE  V 

Relation   Between   Total   Population   and   Public   School   Population 

Lawrence  Township,   Mercer  County,   New  Jersey. 

With  Estimates  From  1925  to  1940 


5  Year 

Per  Cent 

Increase 

Public 

Increase 

* 

Total 

Per 

Per 

Enrolment 

* 

in  Total 

School 

in  Chil- 

Popu- 
lation 

Cent 
In- 

Cent 
De- 

Enrol- 
ment 

Enrol- 
ment is 

dren  of 
Total 

Eleyn. 

H.S. 

Total 

crease 

crease 

{Per 
Cent) 

of  Total 
Popula- 
tion 

En- 
rolment 

1900 

1,.555 

14.6 

**302 

11 

313 

7.6 

20.1 

26 

1905 

2,043 

31.4 

**310 

***11 

321 

2.5 

15.6 

8 

1910 

2,522 

23.4 

404 

***25 

429 

33.6 

16.4 

108 

1915 

3,339 

32.4 

578 

41 

619 

44.3 

18.5 

190 

1920 

3,686 

10.4 

776 

72 

848 

36.9 

23.0 

229 

1925 

4,419 

20 

900 

95 

995 

17.3 

22.5 

147 

1930 

5,303 

20 

1,047 

120 

1,167 

17.3 

22.0 

172 

1935 

6,364 

20 

1,218 

150 

1,368 

17.2 

21.5 

201 

1940 

7,637 

20 

1,418 

185 

1,603 

17.2 

21.0 

235 

*School  enrolment  taken  for  years  1900-1,  1905-6,  etc. 
**Includes  enrolment  in  New  Jersey  Chiklrens'  Home  (figures  taken  from  Annual 

Report  of  State  Board  of  Education.) 
***Estimated  high  school  enrolment. 


8  Survey  of  Public  School  System 

has  ranged  from  approximately  i6%  to  23%  for  this  period,  the  aver- 
age percentage  for  the  five  year  periods  1900  to  1920  being  approxi- 
mately 19%. 

The  percentage  that  public  school  enrolment  is  of  total  school 
population  for  the  year  1920  is  23.  In  Table  V  are  also  given  the 
estimates  for  total  population  and  for  school  enrolment  for  each  of 
the  next  five  year  periods.  These  estimates  are  based  upon  the  ten- 
dencies indicated  in  the  table  for  the  past  two  decades  and  also  upon 
the  belief  that  the  suburban  growth  will  continue  at  even  a  greater 
Chart  No    1  rate  in  years  to  come.     The  school  population 

figures  for  each  of  the  next  five  year  periods 
have  been  based  upon  what  has  happened  in 
1920  and  upon  the  belief  that  about  the  same 
ratio  will  maintain  for  the  next  twenty  years. 

The  number  of  children  for  whom  educa- 
tional provision  was  being  made  in  Lawrence 
Township  in  1920  was  848,  of  whom  776  were 
being  housed  in  the  Lawrence  Township  schools 
and  72  were  high  school  pupils  being  cared  for  in 
other  school  systems.  Disregarding  the  proba- 
bility that  larger  percentages  of  the  total  school 
Showing  the   %  which   population  will  be  attending  high  school  within 

Public  Schoolenrolment   the  next  decade,  the  estimates  of  total  school 

IS   of  Total  Population 

in    5    Year    Intervals,   enrolment  lor  Lawrence  iownship  will  be  ap- 

1900  to  1920  proximately  as  indicated  in  Table  V  since  the 

ratio  of  school  enrolment  to  total  population  has  reached  a  maxi- 
mum point  for  this  type  of  community.  At  the  present  rate  of 
growth,  approximately  5,300  people  will  be  living  in  Lawrence  Town- 
ship in  1930  and  school  provisions  must  be  made,  for  about  1,100 
children  at  that  time.     These  are  regarded  as  conservative  estimates. 

In  Chart  No.  i  is  shown  the  percentage  which  the  public 
school  enrolment  is  of  total  population  in  five  year  intervals  from 
1900  to  1920.  There  is  reason  to  believe  from  the  nature  of  the 
present  residential  building  construction  and  the  types  of  families 
which  are  coming  into  Lawrence  Township  that  the  increase  in  the 
ratio  which  has  gradually  developed  since  1905  will  be  maintained 
in  the  next  decade.  The  desirability  of  Lawrence  Township  for  resi- 
dential purposes  and  for  the  purpose  of  bringing  up  families  is  not 
open  to  question. 


ISOO  1«5  1910  19LS 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 


Appr ojtt/y^ofe    RcQidGncG  of  each 
Child  Ei^reNed  in  the.  £lemGnta_ 
Sch  oqIs,  %JanL/oru ,  /J  >3M^,   of 


SCHOOLS   OF 

UMRENCE  TOWNSHIP,  Md 

©  Slackvroad 

®    L  owrenc&)fltle 
®   Eld,;d<i^    Po,K 
©   Cljr-ksillle: 


Map  No.  2 


10 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 


< 


H 

< 
Q 

Z 
H 


< 

El 
2 

S 

O 

w 

o 
o 
» 

o 


c 

3 
O 

U 

;-> 
o 


a 

o 
H 

(O 

o 

CI 
o 

1-1 

1^ 

CO  ^ 

o    o 

:;3  o 

l-H 

s     I 

-a 
c 
o 


'T3 

03 


< 


-»J    1—1 


Ph    oj 

cj     o 

o 

o 
C 

c3 

C 
QJ 

< 

"3 
Q 

o 
bC 
o3 
!-i 
C 
> 


w 


2 
■1 

Per  Cent 
Attendance 

C3    t^    Tjf    T-H    lO    CO 

CO   CO    1-1    (N    C50    t^ 
t^    00   00   00   I^   00 

-< 
Q 

-=1: 

C^l    CO   TjH    1©    »0   00 

CO    to   (m'   1-1    (M    lO 
05   O   (M    (M    CO    lO 

T— 1      1— t      1— 1      I— 1      1— ( 

fe5 

Enrol- 
ment 

O   00   00   (N    (M    C5   O 
-!*<   CO   05   00    O   O   00 
1-1   1-1    1-1   1-1    (N    (M    i-< 

Per  Cent 
A  ttendance 

O   IM    00   t^   00   1-1   t> 

i-i  CO  ci  t^  ic  t^  lo 

00   00   l^    00   00   00    00 

§ 

2 

S5 

CO    03    (N   '^    CO    Ci 

d    00   ^'   CD    (N    (m'   (M 
T-(    rH   rfi    lO   O    1—1    (M 
rH    1-1    .-1    1-1    (M    <M    (N 

Enrol- 
7)ient 

C0t^'*00O03C0O 
t^t^O;OC2QO^<N 
T-lT-Ci-ifNC^C^lCOCO 

s 

Per  Cent 

Attendance 

(3) 

t^    CO    CO    1-1    r-l    ■*    lO 

1— (    1— (   t--.   O   'C   lO    00 
00   GO    00   00   05    GO   00 

CO    05    O    CO    l>    tH    1-1 
1-H    »C   CO   C^i   -*'    03   t^ 

i>  o  (N  c^  CO  CO  ■* 

rH     1—1     1—1    1—1    1—1    1—1 

(MiMCOTt<OTt<COCO 

O    O    CO    00    05    03    05    QC' 

i 

i-lCOl>00050i-l(N 

i-(r-4i-l.-Hi-((MC<l(N 

1         1         1         1         1         1       1        1 

OkOCOt^C0050i-i 

1— ii— ii— ii— ii— It— ((^^(^^ 

i-Hl— li— ii— (1— li— It— li— ( 

* 

Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 


11 


•K3 

S 

g 

o 

t^ 

(M 

Oi 

t^ 

•g- 

1 

rH 

d 

CO 

d 

t-^ 

CO  r^ 

"1 

^  -^ 

Q."^ 

00 

00 

00 

X 

00 

00  c» 

'=!i 

t^ 

lO 

1— ( 

lO 

CO 

t^    05 

ci 

CO 

d 

d 

d 

CO 

CO  ■* 

s 

CO 

i> 

•<*< 

lO 

05 

<M    CO 

^* 

(M 

eo 

■* 

Tti 

■* 

U5   >0 

O      "c^ 

'^ 

00 

(M 

(M 

CO 

O   o 

£-   S 

O 

t^ 

CI 

CO 

I-H 

■*  t^ 

Tf< 

i-o 

lO 

CO 

1> 

t-  t^ 

^        1 

O   g 

to 

o 

o 

(M 

t^ 

I-H 

i*      ^ 

1-H 

ci 

d 

lO 

s 

^-^ 

00 

CO 

i> 

Tt< 

Q>     - 

»*^ 

^ 

-^ 

:::i 

C^l 

i> 

I— 1 

£ 
^ 

ci 

T-H 

d 

t^ 

d 

^« 

> 

CO 

i-H 

(M 

I— 1 

c 

'^ 

C^    - 

I 

»c 

o 

O 

CO 

s   s 

Tt< 

Tj< 

-* 

■* 

1*5    '- 

•*o 

2?        ■ 

s  ^ 

O  ^ 

?^ 

IC 

'^ 

t> 

00 

i-H 

Tjl    (M 

s 

lO 

lO 

CO 

Tt* 

lO 

d  d 

£^ 

-§ 

l> 

00 

00 

t^ 

00 

r^  o 

'^ 

f~ 

LO 

o 

M< 

(M 

CO 

CO    IM 

ci 

00 

CO 

>o 

CO 

00 

d  d 

• 

IM 

(N 

(M 

i-f 

I-H 

l-H     I-H 

- 

'^ 

-^^ 

h  s 

o 

»— I 

t^ 

'^ 

00 

C2    lO    C3 

^  s 

to 

'^ 

CO 

(M 

<M 

(M    (M    I-H 

ol 

s 

-1 

lO 

t^ 

05 

(M 

lO 

CO    O 

ls^ 

O! 

d 

d 

LO 

I-H 

t^    lO 

00 

00 

02 

t^ 

00 

1>    00 

Qs 

<a  ~ 

• 

'^-a 

c 

''t^ 

-« 

TfH 

IC 

00 

1> 

CO   00 

cS 

lO 

i6 

CO 

(M 

d 

d  d 

,S 

• 

(N 

1— t 

1—1 

I-H 

I-H 

I-H     (M 

fi^ 

•^ 

-s  - 

i  1 

^ 

<M 

t> 

(N 

CO 

CO   00  •* 

CO 

(N 

T-l 

(N 

(M 

CO    CO    (M 

^  s 

1— 1 

CO 

t^ 

00 

o> 

O    >-*    iM 

s 

^ 

T-H 

1— 1 

T-H 

T-< 

I-H 

(N  (M  (^^ 

« 

5 

1 

i 

J. 

ci 

1 

ci) 

ci.i^ 

> 

I— 1 

i-H 

I-H 

I-H 

1-H 

I-H    (M     !M 

C5 

05 

05 

o 

Oi 

05    03    03 

1~^ 

^H 

r-^ 

'"' 

^H 

1-H     I-H     I-H 
* 

Ih 

O 


bC 


;h 

a 


13 

.  "o 

I-H       '-' 

o 

r-H    JC 

o"  &. 
CO  73 
u    a 


(O 


s 

S3 


CO 


3 

CO 

O 


00 


-^     rt     <1J     is 


o 

<o 

a 

<o 
a 

CO 

S    o 

*3    ^r- 


05 
I-H 

« 

-1-2 
Cm 
C3 

13 
O 
O 
& 
CO    o 


>  > 


o 


bc  rs  •:: 


C! 


*  — ' 


bC 


C 
m 

<<  Ph 


O     -1.3 

M  "a 
-^  2 

•r-    <» 

W  PQ 


(M    CO   •*    »0 


12  Survey  of  Public  School  System 

_  ,     .       _              o  7      7  For  the  eleven  year  period,  1910-1921,  the 

Relation  Between  bchoot  ,                      1      1          1            1       •               j 

^       ,                ,    .  elementary  school  enrolment  has  mcreased 

Lnrolment  and  Average  ^                                    ™,                        ,   ., 

^    .,      .         ,  Irom  404  to  732.      Ihe  average  dailv  at- 

DaiLy  Attendance  i           1        •               1  r           ^            V     • 

■^  tendance  has  mcreased  from  267  to  565  m 

1920-1921.  The  percentage  of  attendance  has  increased  from  ap- 
proximately 82%  in  1910-1911  to  87%  in  1920-1921.  The  great 
increase  in  the  per  cent  of  attendance  came  in  1918-1919  when  the 
pupils  of  Bakersville  section  were  for  the  first  time  transported  to 
Slackwood.  This  high  percentage  was  not  maintained  in  1919-1920 
but  was  again  found  possible  in  1920-192 1.  The  enrolment  for  the 
period  1910-1921  has  increased  90%  in  the  Lawrenceville  school, 
70%  in  the  Slackwood  school,  43%  in  the  Eldridge  Park  school 
(1915-1921),  10%  in  the  Rosedale  school  and  has  decreased  about 
50%  in  the  Clarksville  school.  Some  of  these  percentages  have  been 
affected  by  the  institution  of  school  transportation.  The  changes  are 
based  on  the  enrolment  for  1920-1921  since  the  final  figure  for  1921- 
1922  is  not  yet  available. 

The  relationship  between  enrolment  and  average  daily  attend- 
ance for  each  of  the  existing  schools  and  for  Lawrence  Township  as  a 
whole  is  shown  in  Table  VL 

.  „    .,       Much  school  time  is  lost  through  the  irregular  at- 

Averas^e  Daily  1  r  -i        t       1  r 

.         ,  tendance  of  pupils.     In  the  state  report  tor  1919- 

Attendance  ^  „         1  •     •     i-  ^  j        1.      • 

1920,  Lawrence   lownship  is  listed  as  having  a  per 

cent  of  attendance  of  84.6.  Hopewell  Township,  Princeton  Borough, 
Hamilton  Township,  East  Windsor  Township  and  Trenton  City 
have  percentages  of  attendance  which  are  higher  than  that  of  Law- 
rence Township.  The  percentage  of  attendance  in  Trenton  City 
reaches  88.6.  It  is  clear  that  Lawrence  Township  should  take  mea- 
sures to  provide  for  more  regular  attendance. 

-_  . ,  .  ,  T,, .  .,  .  Each  dot  on  Map  No.  2  indicates  the  ap- 
Residential  Distribution  .  -i       •  1  1         •         r        1      1  -u 

,  ^  ,      ,  _,        ,     .  proximate  residential  location  of  each  child 

0/  Cichool  ropulation  ,.         ,        ,  1      1       r  t 

■'  ^  attending  the  elementary  schools  of  Law- 

rence Township.  The  distribution  of  children  according  to  residences 
was  made  with  the  assistance  of  the  teachers  in  each  grade.  The  loca- 
tion of  each  dot  gives  the  approximate  residence  of  one  child. 
Here  is  clearly  shown  the  elementary  school  problem  for  the  district. 


PART  II 

WEALTH  AND   SCHOOL   SUPPORT 

Among  the  more  than  500  school  districts  in  the  state,  Lawrence 
Township  occupies  positions  as  follows: — * 

In  net  assessed  valuations,**  Lawrence  ranks 132nd 

In  number  of  pupils  enrolled,  "  "      114th 

In  state  apportionment,  "  "      iioth 

In  state  apportionment  per  pupil,  "  "      184th 

In  local  tax  raised  for  schools,        "  "      140th 

In  local  tax  raised  per  pupil,  "  "      31?^^ 

It  is  interesting  to  note  that  although  Lawrence  ranks  as  high  as 
184th  in  state  apportionment  per  pupil,  she  ranks  as  low  as  317th  in 
local  tax  per  pupil.  In  net  assessed  valuation  Lawrence  ranks  132nd, 
but  in  local  tax  raised  for  schools  she  ranks  only  140th. 

Lawrence  Township  seems  to  have  fallen  below  the  average  in 
the  amount  of  money  available  per  pupil  and  in  the  amount  of  local 
tax  raised  per  pupil.     This  is  shown  below: — 

Average  amount  available  per  pupil  in  New  Jersey  $83.18 
Average    amount    available    per    pupil    in   Mercer 

County $84 .  06 

Amount  available  per  pupil  in  Lawrence  Township  $62.31 
Average   amount  of  local   tax   raised   per  pupil   in 

N.J $63.27 

Amount  of  local  tax  raised  per  pupil  in  Lawrence 

Township — $45  .94 

For  purposes  of  detailed  comparisons  with  other  school  districts 
in  the  state,  those  having  a  student  enrolment  ranging  from  845  to 
1,025  were  selected  for  comparison  with  Lawrence  Township.  In  all 
there  are  twenty-one  of  these  districts  with  Lawrence  Township  rank- 
ing eleventh  in  the  number  of  students  enrolled.     It  will  be  noted  that 

*  Fifth  Annual  Report  of  the  State  Board  of  Taxes  and  Assessments  for  the 
year  ending  June  30th,  1920.  Report  Xo.  46  of  the  Business  Manager  of  the  New- 
Jersey  Department  of  Public  Instruction. 

**  In  this  report  the  term  "net  assessed  valuation",  as  used,  means  net  valuation 
on  which  county,  state  and  school  taxes  are  apportioned. 


14 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 


< 


o  ^ 
w   o 

^    to 


a. 

3 


<1 

Eh 

(S 

oo 

a   S 

CO     3 
C3  |5 

;^ 

°  I 

^    o  H 

1^      to    s 

m  Q  g 
^   ^  I 

a   >< 
W   2 

O  S 

£:^ 

g^ 

Cm      U 

o  -^ 


M 

CO 

O 

H 

H 

a 
1-3 


-1-5 

a 


State 
Apportion- 
ment 
Per 
Pupil 

OC3:.-iOCOO«DCC'iOcOt> 
CO'-HOfOOl-^lOCOO^.-iCO 

l^ 

t'coeoooo^cocococo 

CI     1— 1    1— 1     T-H     ^H     Cv^     jvj    ,— 1    C^]    ,— 1     I— 1 

Stale 
Apportion- 
ment 

OOOOINOOOOtJHoC'IOC-- 

o 

05_  iM__  0_  C0_  oi    CD    IM    GO    05   O   (M 

'*"  CO  CO  o"  cc"  o  o  c^"  of  io~  ic" 

(Ml— li— li— li— IC^lC^i— IC^IrHrH 

lO 

Local 

Tax 

Per 

Pupil 

»OO2i:DC0CD'^t--.C0iOO5'^ 
OOiOiOCDi-ICOCOCO-^i— 105 

i-H^DooooTfioir^oioscoic 
t^ioi^ooo-^cot^os-^-* 

1— 1 

■* 

Local 
Tax 

C5QOO»OOCO(N'— ICOO 
'-HOOOCOOOOCOCO'CO 

t-^dio^cdd'-id.-HSrd 

coo(M^QO»ccia3i^S2ci 

•-l^  !-;_  t~-_  '^  -^^  C5    O    CO    ■*    '^  OC 

cocd"oo°£  coooic'd'io'22  ci 

t^lOt^^OOTtHCOt^O^TtH 
1-H 

CO 

Net 

Valuation 

Per 

Pupil 

iOlC--Hr^-rt<t^C3CD(M(MC0 
COOlcOO^HOt^i-HO'— IIO 
CO    O   TfH^  O   t>^  0_  '^^  O   00^  00   (N 

CO   CO    Co"  00    CO"  -*"  O   Co"  t>~  Cf  CO 

(M 

Net 
Assessed 
Valuation 

i-HCDTt<COCOOOC301>'(N'-iO 
>OlC00OcDQ05t>.i-HC0t~- 

■-H^  co^  CO  cq_  00^  o_  "*,  '"1.  "^  <^„  °^ 
co"  i-T  t>r  i>r  oo~  t-J"  TtT  i-T  oT  d~  i-T 

1— lOCDiOOOCDOOt^OC-lCO 

"*-  ""1-  '^^  "-^^  '^-  '-'1  '^^  "^^  "^  '^„  Q, 

co"  CO  co"  00  co"  co"  Oi"  co"  i>r  c<r  co" 

- 

"Number  of 

Pupils  in 

District 

10(M(M^(N005COO-*(N 
(MCCOOCaOOCDCOCO 
O^  O^  0_  0_  O    05    05    O    O   05    CI 

Caldwell 

Bergenfield 

Boonton 

Franklin 

Hawthorne 

Freehold 

Glen  Ridge 

Bogota 

Bernards 

Wanaque 

Lawrence 

1 

o 

-^ 

3                             -1-3 

a>fc>CCccccC«M5toC 

Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 


15 


s 


lO 

1— 1 

lO 

o 

OT) 

fO 

Tt< 

lO 

C3 

LO 

1-- 

CO 

IC 

(M 

O 

T— 1 

tH 

iC 

a; 

!M 

'N 

ro 

CO 

^ 

^ 

LO 

<M 

CO 

C/D 

iM 

I— 1 

IM 

CI 

T— I 

I— 1 

T-H 

T— t 

(M 

C^l 

iC 

IM 

o 

1—1 

•M 

O 

,^ 

,.^ 

;o 

CO 

o 

C 

iC 

I- 

1— t 

(M 

T— 1 

'*. 

(M 

1— I 

CO  ■— I  CO  t^  cc  c^i  -^ 

t^    ^    CD    O    O    C^l    CO 

Ci  r-_^  "-^^  00^  C"^  -^^  t^ 
^  i-h"  -#"  c-f  "+"  ro"  o" 

1— I    (M    (M    ^<    ■— '    ^<    '— I 


rr  CO  00 

goo 

z; '+"  CO 


(Mt^COCOCOClt^CO'— 'CO 
■>*    (M    1-1    IC    Ol   »C    (M    T— I    (M    CO 

i>ii^c^rocpocot^'+coo; 

■*CO(MCOCO'*CO00CCCC 


(M    O    O    iM    r^    IM    <M    O    (M    OC 

COCiOCO^'f»CO'*C 

CO    LO    t^    I-^  S    Ci    IM    O    iC    '^ 

(M   lO  ^  O  2  Ol  t^  o  t-  cc 

lO   O  l-^   -i^__  ^^  00^  co_^  TJ^  o_  ^__ 

-rf"  cT  lo"  c  i2  '-<  o  -1^  t^  '-':; 

Tf     CO     ^     CO     "     ^     "-O     l^     Lt     t^ 


lOccaDt--'— it^CiO 

>0    I^    C3    CO    i-*    Ol    <M    '-t^ 

lO  o  o  CO  a)_  o_  cz;_  o_ 
i-T  otT  oT  c-f  c^r  t-h"  co"  ic" 


CTi    IM 


IM    OC    O    CO    Ol    lO 

00    CO    QG    CO    t 
CO__  't^  C0__  ^„  '  „ 

c^  co"  cT  cT  co"  t^' 
o  t^  c/j  IM  r 


-.  CO  ic  t^  02 

00    CO    OD    CO    CO 

^   (X   CC  I^__^  co_^ 

"  i-T  '*'  CO  co' 

LO    ^    O    IC 


■*  -rt^   (M  CO  »o  t^_^  co^  -^^  oi_  co^ 

rH~  t--^   OO"  O-f   (M"  --h"   co"  -*"   '*"   CC 


C<J    1-1    O    CO    O   t^    t^    Ol    IM    iC 

fO<M'-<OOC/]OOCCcO'* 
OCIOOGCIXGOXCZJX 


o 


bjj 
o 
o 


-d 

-t^ 

o 

73 

3 
o 

3 

o 

rH 

Franklin 
Wild  woo 
Milburn 

o 

O 

Clement 
Newton 

o 

c:! 

o 

0) 

.s 

Ph 

JTi    >> 

C! 

3 
o 

C 

X 

c 
o 

CI) 

'^    fll    X 

y 

-^     cj 

CC 

r-i 

3     S     O 

bjj 

C 

G     tc 

^ 

t; 

O     B*    CC 

o 

3     t/j 

o 

fl; 

^     rt     'y;     q; 

o  o  w  e 

S 

<5 

»— ' 

S 

O) 


b£ 


-a 


>. 

o 

Si 

o 


WD 
3 


•n 

3 

CC 

o 


.      CC 

c3 

-T-         tC 

O 

s  s 

W 

3  ''Si 

xn     -- 

03 

•  -H  p5 

-l-i 

1—1     _, 

W. 

IM     2 

i^ 

S 

r^l   <-M 

-*^ 

o 

^     -rf 

-t^ 

II 

o 

m     '-I 
-.      O 

3    P 

-3 

c^i 

c    " 

-« 

.2     O 

rt 

3   <-•-« 

1—1 

Com 
aken 

3 

a 
1 

o  +^ 

O 

-3    t- 

+3 

O 

o 

_     03 

o 

s 

o 

G 

Sh 

O    CO 

<4-< 

>     - 

rH 

T-S 

•So^^ 

^  ^ 

^ 

[C    -^ 

fl) 

&  1-1 

^  ^1 

'O 

r  of  pi 
lumns 

>.  3 

£    3 

o 

o 

T-l 

CO 

3 
3 
-1 

o    o 

•-5     o 

umb 
for  c 

1    § 

o 

CO 

o 
o 

«      Cl 

3 

ci 

o    -+^ 

ti-i  .^ 

H  Q 

O     ci 

i-S 

P 

* 

16  Survey  of  Public  School  System 

the  highest  net  assessed  valuations  in  these  twenty-one  communities 
exceed  $8,000,000,  and  $9,000,000,  that  the  net  valuation  per  pupil 
is  as  high  as  $10,000,  and  that  the  local  tax  runs  as  high  as  $135,000, 
with  $137  as  the  highest  local  tax  per  pupil.  The  lowest  tax  per 
pupil  is  $33,  and  the  lowest  local  tax  is  $30,000.  For  this  same  year, 
1 920-1 92 1,  the  local  tax  per  pupil  of  Lawrence  Township  was  approx- 
imately $46,  while  the  total  local  tax  was  $42,820.  The  state  appor- 
tionment in  these  twenty-one  districts  varied  for  the  year  1920-1921 
from  $10,764,  to  $26,289.  Lawrence  Township's  apportionment  of 
funds  from  the  state  for  this  same  year  was  $15,062.91.  The  state 
apportionment  per  pupil  for  Lawrence  Township  was  $16.37,  while 
other  communities  ranged  from  $10.38  to  $48.89  in  the  apportionment 
per  pupil  allotted  by  the  state. 

To  see  more  clearly  the  position  which  Lawrence  Township  holds 
when  compared  with  other  communities  which  have  a  similar  pupil 
load,  the  facts  of  Table  VH  have  been  converted  into  ranks  as  shown 
in  Table  \  IIL  According  to  this  table,  Lawrence  Township  receives 
state  aid  in  direct  proportion  to  its  rank  in  pupils  as  might  be  ex- 
pected, but  its  rank  in  net  valuation,  and  particularly  in  the  local  tax 
raised  per  pupil,  places  it  very  distinctly  in  the  lower  part  of  this  group 
of  comparable  districts  in  the  state  of  New  Jersey. 

.  For  further  comparison,  twentv-one  districts  in 
Comparisons  on  the  1     ^   j    '1       • 

.  New  Jersev  were  selected  havmg  approxi- 
Basis  of  yyealth  ,       ,       '  1^1        t  t'  u- 

■^  mately  the  same  wealth.     Lawrence   iownship 

is  the  median  township  of  this  group.  In  Table  IX,  this  group  of 
twenty-one  townships  and  boroughs  is  shown  together  with  their 
pupil  loads,  their  net  valuations  per  pupil,  the  local  tax  raised  in  each 
case,  the  local  tax  per  pupil  and  the  state  apportionment  per  pupil. 
The  very  great  variations  in  the  ability  of  the  districts  in  New  Jersey 
to  support  schools  is  clearly  brought  out  in  this  table.  In  these 
twenty-one  districts,  with  minor  variations  in  the  net  assessed  valua- 
tions, the  number  of  pupils  to  be  educated  in  each  district  varies  from 
85  to  1,822,  the  net  valuation  per  pupil  from  $1,643  ^o  ^36,097,  the 
local  tax  from  $6,900  to  $92,369,  the  local  tax  per  pupil  from  $18.76  to 
$101.54  '^"^  ^^^  state  apportionment  per  pupil  from.  $7.82  to  $26.27. 
The  rank  of  Lawrence  Township  on  each  of  these  items  is  shown  in 
Table  X.  Here  again,  it  is  evident  that  Lawrence  Township  is  sup- 
porting its  schools  by  means  of  local  tax  to  a  less  degree  than  its  rank 
in  net  valuation  in  this  group  of  districts  would  warrant. 


Lawrence  Towjiship,  New  Jersey 


17 


< 
< 

a 
M 
H 

O 
O 

m 
W 
P^ 

K 
H 


H 
in 
« 
H 

O 
O 


r^  0 


< 


a  2 

o 

«     K 

go 

a  S 

z 

o 

m 
^^ 

K 
<! 
Cu 

O 
O 

g 

:=!! 
z 
<; 

P^ 
&< 

a 

EC 

12; 

O 

H 
O 

z 


Rank  in 
State  Ap- 
portionment 

^    I^    X    ^    C.    X    -M    ^    »C    'M    --I 

^-      r—      C^l                                         T— 1                 ^^      t^ 

OOC0^OC0CiC^Hl> 

Rank  in 
State  Ap- 
portionment 

(M      "+      IC      ^      OO     t^      ^      —      IC     rH      O 
r-1     .— 1     d                                     >— 1                I-H     I— 1 

OOO-^t^ClCOOCSCOO 
,-1                   ,-1    1— 1    T-H    C"A    1-1 

Rank  in 
Local  Tax 
Per  Pupil 

c;  -^  x  c  '-t  ic  T— 1  t^  CO  00  oi 

!Oi-'C^i-iOt^'MOCO-^ 
1-1    1-1           (M    (M    ^    ^           1-1 

Rank  in 
Local  Tax 

o  -t  L':  ^  -^  I-':  ^  w  rc  t-  vj 

^                ^                ■— 1                                     ^     ^H 

!S    O    C-1    ^    O    C:    CI    OC'    CO   I> 

1— 1    T— 1           (M    CI    1—1    1—1           1—1 

Rank  in 

Net 
Valuation 

Til    O    CO    rf    iM    C:    CI    C    w    t-    IC 

,-H     I— 1     1—1                I-H                          "-H                1— 1     i-H 

O»CC0C0C3.-<.-(t-^Xi-i 
(M                   1—1    1—1    C^l    1—1 

Rank  in 

Net 
Valuation 

CO    LO    (M    (M    '^    C.    ^    O    O    t--   O 

'-iiCrfC;oOO'*'b-CCfO 
CI                   1— I    .-<    C)    1— 1 

Rank  in 
No.  Pupils 
in  District 

i-HiMco'^ioot^ooc;  o-^ 

ClCO^LO^^t-CCOCi-H 

Caldwell 

Bergenfield 

Boonton 

Franklin 

Hawthorne 

Freehold 

Glen  Ridge 

Bogota 

Bernards 

Wanaque 

Lawrence 

Franklin 

Wildwood  City 

Milburn 

Carlstadt 

Keyjjort 

Clementon 

Newton 

Madison 

Sccaucus 

Princeton  Bor. 

5> 

1 

c   -r.   y  s   %        a   %  a   '^ 

X     «   'ii;     £     03     S     X     &i,    S     C3     o 

Gloucester 

Cape  May 

Essex 

Bergen 

Monmouth 

Camden 

Sussex 

Morris 

Hudson 

Mercer 

18 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 


O 

fa 
< 

l-H 

o 

E-i 


O 

a 

o 


CD 


W 
09 

o 

M 
O 

►J 

O 

o 
a 
o 
m 

« 

w 

H 
O 


m 

CO 

cc 


'^ 


Q 

w 

CLi 

o 
O 


CO 

o 

w 
o 

"A 


CO 


CO 

o 


^     <M 


a) 

'Eh 

Q 

iH 
o 


•S 

t*-s 

00 

o 

CO 

l^ 

<M 

CO 

IC 

Cj5    '^ 

c^i  1^ 

CO 

CO 

CO 

T-H 

1^ 

CO* 

CO 

"O 

^    OO 

CO  t^ 

GO   CO 

t^  CO 

1^ 

5 

(^ 

<N 

rH 

(M 

(M 

l-H 

l-H 

l-H     l-H 

l-H 

i 

O 

o 

GO 

C^l 

CD 

^H 

(M 

(M    O 

O     ^ 

^ 

•r^ 

o 

^ 

05 

i-O 

1-H 

CO 

(M 

O    <M 

O    05 

3 

■^ 

__^ 

CO 

ci 

^' 

l-H 

ci 

t^ 

d 

t^    GO 

lo  d 

;r^ 

s 

5i 

-o 

"^ 

IM 

1—1 

2' 

CO 

CO 

CO 

l-H      lO 

CD    CD 

CQ 

a 

CO 

q_ 

OC' 

c: 

l-H 

o^ 

(M_^  l-^ 

CD    C-) 

S 

^ 

cT 

1— 1 

im" 

o" 

cT 

co" 

t^" 

co"  d~ 

i-O^ 

rH 

I— 1 

I— I 

Tt< 

l-H 

l-H      l-H 

»-H 

r— A 

f— ^ 

t^ 

CO 

o 

t^ 

o 

C5 

t^ 

O     LO 

GO    •* 

?i. 

^-^ 

o 

CO 

OO 

LO 

IQ 

lO 

o 

iC  o 

l-H     C3i 

§ 

&H 

•<< 

i-O 

(N 

as 

00 

d 

03 

d 

r^ 

d  d 

l-H     lO 

(C 

t^ 

1-1 

CO 

CO 

iC 

CD 

iC 

lO  t^ 

GO    -* 

05 

o 

t^ 

o 

^ 

^ 

T-H 

o  o 

O   O 

»**a 

■* 

<o 

:0 

CO 

o 

o 

I^ 

O   lO 

o  o 

3 

5J 

,^ 

"^' 

t^ 

^ 

f-H 

r^ 

d 

•rf<' 

d  t^ 

d  d 

o 

&^ 

rO 

t^ 

CO 

»c 

CO 

fM 

r^ 

"O 

O   CO 

o   C^l 

K^ 

CO 

t- 

r— 1 

I^ 

T— ( 

l-H 

CO 

'"•^  "^l 

Ol_  CO 

o 

Oi 

CO 

GO 

CO 

(M 

cjT 

ccT  c-f 

CD    im" 

o 

tp 

LO 

Tt< 

CD 

CO 

t^ 

■O     Tl< 

-* 

5 

»-^ 

-t< 

-1— * 

CO 

a-. 

X 

Tt^ 

t^ 

o  o 

t^  CO 

-fO 

!___ 

•^ 

CO 

^— ^ 

!M 

^H 

■X 

t- 

C^l 

CS    (M 

C5    lO 

^ 

e 

50 

^'o 

t-^_^ 

s_ 

^^ 

O 

t^ 

GO 

(M^ 

q_  ^ 

O    <M 

C3 

a. 

0^ 

-*" 

'*" 

"-O" 

(m" 

c^r 

•o 

C^f 

CO    lO" 

cd'~  co" 

CO 

t:- 

l3 

CO 

13 

Ol 

CO 

OC 

LO 

to 

1 — 1 

o 

!M    CO 

'O    (M 

^o 

•cS> 

•c^ 

CT) 

(M 

cri 

cr. 

•* 

CO 

O    O 

Vj    CO 

o^ 

gn 

^ 

■*-j    I-Ci 

O 

cz; 

»c 

lO 

^H 

o 

CO 

°    CD 

CJi 

^ 

■^ 

w  cS 

1— t 

1— 1 

1 — 1 

l-H 

^ 

"-H 

Q 

•-^ 

-o 

CO 

00 

1— 1 

1^ 

f— 1 

-* 

C^J 

CD    C^l 

CO  o 

S 

5 

CO 

lO 

o 

IC 

r- 

CO 

iC 

lO   o 

O   t^ 

-^ 

cc 

•'S- 

T— 1 

o 

C5 

!M 

t^ 

Tj 

GC^ 

co__  o 

oi_  oo_^ 

!>: 

:^ 

^ 

V 

s 

o; 

o 

'* 

^ 

(>] 

Tj 

t^ 

T^     CO 

go"  ^ 

so 

^ 

"*— ^ 

o 

C5 

^ 

(M 

C: 

l-H 

^H 

o  o 

CO    CO 

^ 

f-^i 

CO 

(M 

(M 

<M 

T-H 

l-H 

l-H 

■"l  ^^ 

o_  o_ 

N 

k.^ 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO"  CO~ 

co"  co" 

c^ 

o 

Bergenfield  Borough 
Wayne  Township 

^.s- 

CL 

03 

o3 

W 

3 
o 

^-s 

Ewing  Townshi 
Glassboro  Town 
Borough  of  Vero 
Pleasantville 
Northampton 

O 

s 

o 

l-H 

o 
« 
;h 

> 
o 

CO 

Allenhurst  Boro 
Lawrence  Town 

^ 

.-^ 

X. 

Si 

3 

a; 

_CJ 

o 

CO 

0.2 

2  ^ 

o 

<u 

o 

X 

^ 

X 

,^ 

tj      X 

o    o 

§ 

— 1       CO     -U       iJ       C3 

O  W  <i  «  Ph 

I^H 

pq  Ph 

s§ 

Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 


19 


s 


I— I 


C     1. 


COOOOC'IOOOIOIGC'O 
T-H    C<1    C^    t— I    T— I    T— I  T— 1    (M 


CO 


I 

o 


O   ^  rO 


O  '^  t^ 
o^   '^   C:i 


LO  o  o  o  c^  c 
"*  CO  1— I  '-H  c  ro 


1— (»00'*»COCO'— iiOiC 
qC,CDO03t-i(Mi0C0^O 

(M  oq_  o_  Tf_^  c-i_  co^  t--^  (M^  Tf^  c-i 

o6"i>^o  tzT'-Tcsrcri-rc/r'-H 

■^         I— I   Cl  T— I   ,— I   CO 


'^  t^  -*  lO  ^ 
C:  CO  lO  O  O 


■^  "-H 


CC  O  "O 
l^  C)  o 


CO  O  --H 

-*  CO  o 


CO  O  C3  O  CC  C-l  o 
CO  t^  lO  '*'  ^  t^  't' 


OOOO^LQiO^iOO-lO 

(M    CO    O    O    ID    CO    CO    O    O    l^ 
!->■__  CO_  CO_^  C0__  rH^  o^  ci_  o^  t--__^  o_ 

tC  lo"  cd"  of  o"  t--^  O-f  >-<"  f-*"  lO 


^  -^  ^  (^ 


oi  CO  L'^  c^  i^  c.  (M  r^  ic  (M 

lO    ^    (M    Ci    O    LO    O    t-    CC'    ^ 

t^  CO  ■*  o  <M  iM  r-_^  io_  a:^  co__ 
•^"^  r-T  ,-r  rH~  of  cd"  of  of  of  of 


1^ 


rH0;O5lO(X)LOC0'+l"*O2 

COOIIOCOOOCOIOOIOO 

CO  CO  oi  -*i  oi  "*  O  ■-*  o  01 


'^ 


CO 
CO 


K-^         ^         -^         ^ 

<-<      CO    ^ ' 


CO 
CO 


t^ 


COOOO'OrHClO'-HClCO 

CO  t^  i^  1^  CO  01  CO  1-  00  1^ 

t^    I^    T-H    T^    Ol    CO    CD    l^_^  O^  •^__ 

czT  co"  cT  cd"  o  cT  o6~  co"  oT  ^"^ 

OCiOOlOl'— lOOCOCO 

ooocia3c:c5_co_oc^co 
of  of  of  of  of  of  of  of  of  of 


CO 


o 

a 


T3 


b£ 


3    "  ' 


3    o 


bbW 


r-    o    Q    P  :^ 

C      r-t      ^      '-'    r^H 


Q 


o 

2 
■> 


o 
c 

ci 

p:5 


bX) 
3 

o 

o 
cq 


bD 

o  . 
f-l 
o 
pq 

> 

o 


c3 
o 
o 


o   y       _ 

in     ,"       ^     ' 

O   i^ 


X 


Ph   Ph 


-a 

3 

m 

n 

p 

^ 

O 

o 

pq 

H 

c 

; — 1 

o 

CJ 

3 

<D 

T1 

o^ 

3 

O 

<r5 

w 

s 

o 

o 


5 

O 


3 

o 


o 


pq  m 


^-1 

o 
3 

o 


s 

1^  '"3 


-=3    :3    a; 


§  O  O  cl  O  S 


■r. 


Oh 


bC 

C 
c3 


IB 


CQ 


CO 

d 
o 


!/3 

cc 


a: 

o 


c3 
O 

pq 

o 

■+^ 

in 


o 
o 

p^ 


o 


^  -'^  S 

•4-i  ^  "— '  QJ 

^  ^'  >;'^ 

3  3  ^  ■;, 

3  3  ^  *- 

3  d     3  1^  § 

"^^  (M  "^  ^  - 

O  _j     w  rj  ^ 

-  !-  »7  " 

o  ^-^    C  '^  '— 

t^-  ^      t4-,  t*^  O 

d  'o    rt  -  rt 

rf  3     c^  5  ^ 

P  ►^  Q  -^  P 


01 


3 


20 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 


X 


X 

o 

o 

a 

02 

a 


H 

a 
OX 

^  s 

«  pa 

^  < 

►J  " 

o  z 

c  a 

s  <* 

X  C 

si  a: 

a  S 

a  a 

o  ^ 

s  ^ 

o  S 

a:  r, 

BS 

«=; 

s 
o 
O 


o 
a 

2^ 


X 

03 

2; 
o 

a 
u 

a 


^1 


^     -(Si 


LO  CO  o 


CO    C    C^l    t 


r-H     rt  (M 


iO'-i'*OOl^C50COO(M 


s    <»    c 

a. 


s    ^   H    s 

rH    '^    -=    0- 


ooco^(Nioc2t--o-*^cr. 

I— I     T-H  r— I    1— I  >— I     1— I     (M 


CC    r-H 


lO   Tt<    I>    O    (M    O    00 


'COiMO'-HCirC^OCOCC 


CO   l>    (M    00    '-H    rti    O 

I— I     i-H     O'l  t-H 


OfMlOCOCOCO-^i-HCO 
T-H  i-H  ,-1    (M    rH 


r^    00     O    rH 


(M    00    lO    © 

I-H     1-1     (N 


^  t> 


Q    i- 


S  -rr    c 


'^  <:    '^    a. 


CO   G2   »0    Ci   CO   '^i    t-- 


CO 


t^    ^    (M    O    00    CO    ^    lO    (M    CD 

C-l  C^     T— I  1— I     rH     >^     I-H 


TtiCOt^Clt^X-fC: 


CO    -H    C^l 

I-H      CI      I-H 


LO 


O   CO    lO    Ci    C5    00 

(N  I-H 


^1  ^ 


^iMcO'#iocDi^cz:c:o^ 


(Mco'*iocoi^ooc;0'-H 


p 


w  a  «  ph 


o    ^ 

PQ   5 

o       rt       iH 

g   c  .2 

^   Ph   X 


5  at' 

i  ^  S 

O  M      S 

"3  O     HJ 

c  2   S 

"2  [^  <^ 


:=!     rt 


b£i 


C 


o 


o 

in 

o 

^   S   g 

g    ci    <u 

aq  :5  P 


3"    b£P-3 


P  ::^  <» 

t.  o  -H 

O  JH  — 

^  s  ^ 

>  .■+£  o 

tn  f^  t-< 

CS  ^  i—i 

fe  p^  ^ 


bC 

c 

T 

t- 

n 

o 

tH 

pq 

o 

P2 

> 

n 

o 

o 

O 

tc 

3 

C 

c3 

fl) 

Ph 

(ii 

-El -a 

bC   tc 

3    iU 

2  ^ 
o   o 

PQ  ^ 

o    <u 

-2  ^ 

3  o 


^ 

Lh 

■^ 

O 

© 

CJ 

o 

<B 

o 


o 


•?    bj:  o 


X 


0) 

a  <  P2.  t. 


^  -5  £g  :2  s 


bC 


^  P2 


-^   sh   !-.  .y 


03 


£ 
o  ^ 


O) 
£ 


0) 

01 


^<^pQpa^00c»0<5 


Lawrence  Toivnship,  Neiv  Jersey  21 

When  compared  on  the  same  items  as  utilized  in  the  preceding 
tables  with  the  eight  other  townships  and  boroughs  of  Mercer  County 
(Trenton  excluded),  as  has  been  done  in  Table  XI,  Lawrence  Township 
ranks  3rd  in  the  number  of  pupils  in  the  district,  6th  in  net  valuation, 
7th  in  the  valuation  per  pupil,  9th  in  the  local  tax  per  pupil,  9th  in  the 
state  apportionment  per  pupil,  6th  in  the  local  tax  rate  and  6th  in  the 
total  state  apportionment.  From  the  amount  of  local  tax  per  pupil, 
it  is  clear  that  Lawrence  Township  is  making  less  local  effort  for  the 
support  of  its  schools  than  the  other  townships  in  the  county. 

Table  XII  concerns  the  study  of  Lawrence  Township  only  on 
certain  important  financial  items.  The  state  school  tax  paid  by  the 
district  has  increased  only  slightly  since  191 7.  During  the  same 
interval  of  time,  the  amount  received  by  Lawrence  Township  from  the 
state  has  increased  more  than  50%.  The  local  tax  rate  has  increased 
more  than  200%,  but  the  net  valuations  have  increased  only  slightly 
from  the  period  1917-1922,  during  a  period  when  the  net  valuation  in 
the  state  increased  12.7%.  These  facts  have  been  graphically  repre- 
sented in  Chart  No.  2. 

„  ,  .  ,  Bearing  in  mind  that  Lawrence  Township's 

Lawrence  1  ozvnsnip  s  .  .  .  .      ,     ,        . 

r.     .  .  assessments  have  not  increased  m  the  last  few 
jrosttiofi 

,     ^  years,  the  following  facts  are  given: 

in  the  County  -.  ,         ny     r    1  1  1      r    1 

Lawrence  has  2%  of  the  wealth  of  the  county, 

raises  2|%  of  the  local  tax  and  has  3.4%  of  the  children  of  Mercer 

County. 

„  The  amount  available  from  all  sources  for  the  instruction 

of  every  child  in  the  state  is  $83.18.     Lawrence  Town- 
'bdrison 

ship  has  made  available  for  the  support  of  each   child 

$62.31;  thus  Lawrence  Township  is  spending  only  75%  as  much  per 

pupil  as  is  available  in  the  state  for  the  average  child. 

1  J  T    J  r     J      During  the  period  1907-1921,  the  bonded  indebt- 

XjOitdcCl   J.  flCl'CL/lcCi'''  ■,  r     T  'T^  1*11  11 

edness  01  Lawrence   lownship  has  been  reduced 
from  $39,000,  to   $27,000,  according   to  the  1921 
report  of  the  county  superintendent. 


22 


< 


Eh 
O 

03 
Eh 

O 

o 

)— I 
Eh 
0. 

a 

X 

Eh 


>H 
Z 

o 
O 


« 

H 


O 

E- 

5 

a; 


ca 
a 
X 

O 

a 


o 

z 


o 


^wrt-e?/  of  Public  School  System 


}iidiuuot]uod 
-dy  djiyj^'m  quvy^ 


pooq  in  mmy 


jidnj  .ud  ludmuoif 


■JD 


Z 

a 
_    a; 


»o 


fO 


c^ 


2ul)ij  U3d  XV j^ 


julnj  jdd  uot) 


uoifDnjVyi 


pufsiQ  m  sjtdnj 


5   fe 

^ 


Si. 


5    II   §   I   I- 


C     H     K 

«:>    e    t 


3 


pufsiQ  in  fijidnj 


o 

z 

o 


•-H  (M  CD 


't^  lO  CO  t^  05  00 


<-i    CO    CD 


00  lO  C5 


!M  '*  lO  t^  C:  OD 


t^  CO  CO  rH  rfH  (M 


CO  CO  C: 


^  (M  ■*  CO  t^  IC 


'^  GO  t- 


C^  lO  O  CO  CO  i-H 


'-HCOCDiMiOCJr^QOTtH 


^    IM    CO 


■*    lO    O   t^    CC    Ci 


O    y-i 
CO    C5 


CO  LQ    O 

00  o  CO 

»0  C-1^  (M_ 

O  r-T   lo' 

CO  CO  i-H 


CO    O    (M    (M    Ci   t^ 

r-H     O    l:^    Ci    Tfl     1— I 


CO  CO  CO  CO  lO  (M 
05  Tfi  (M  CO  'Tf  (M 
t>_  C0__  -^^^  CD    (M    CD 

00  cd"  oT  -h"  oT  oo" 


(M 

03 

o 

lO 

Th 

o 

T-H 

r^ 

c 

t^ 

t-- 

r-} 

CD 

CD 

or 

(M 

LO 

(^1 

i-H 

lO 

■^ 

(M 

CO  C5  o  o  o  o 
O   ■>#   o   iQ   o   o 


'^  -*  iC  t^  o  o 

00  t^  CD    GO    O  CD 

■^  CO  T-H  ^H  CO  M' 

'O  o  TjT  ^i"  CO  t--^ 

t^  IC  Tf<     (M     rH  ,-1 


I-H     1— I     t^ 

■—I  00  CO 


t^    lO    CD 

^    C-\    1-^ 


LO  00 
CI  CO 


GO    CD    O 

"*  t^  1^ 


Ol   CO   CO   CD   t-   c 
0-1    C-1    <M    CO    (M    CO 


00    lO    -rt^ 

o  o  C-. 


O    CD    LC 

CO      Ttl      TfH 


t~-     ^H     LO     t»     CD 

C    C:    lO    LO    CO 


ro  oi  CO  05  CD  c-i 

CO    t"^    CD    CD    lO    CD 


^ 

^ 

CO 

»— 1 

•^ 

1-H 

l~- 

7—i 

l*^ 

"* 

o 

If.-" 

'^ 

CO 

^ 

1^ 

-^ 

cr 

<— •■ 

Ol 

O) 

Ol 

t^ 

1— ( 

t~, 

rr 

^1 

tr: 

CO 

CO 

o 

'^ 

CO 

m 

CO 

T-H 

=^  ^  s 

^    °    «! 


(M 

00' 


(M 


CO    CO 
00^  O 

co"  co' 


C2  CO  t^  (X)  t^  o-i 

CD    CO    >— I    G2    O    CD 
CD^  T-H_  CO^  CD   O    O 

co~  cn  iS  co"  --T  TtT 

LO    O    O    O    'f    CO 
CD    CO    Ol    C^    >-H    -ti 


X    CO 


1— I    1— I    CO 


O    O    Ol 

-t<  o  CO 

»0   (M    C5 


lO 


c;  i-H  o  t-^  o 
o  o  T-H  c;  oo 

CD'    CO    CO    O)    (M 


o  'a; 

(J 

S 

p? 

c3     O 

;- 

w  w 

h-3 

o 


c 
o 

a 


5   °        ? 
1^   §H 


^-    ^  .<u  .15  -5 


P^  W  K  ^ 


^  ^  ti  rT- 


o 


bE 


XI 

.S 


CO 

o" 
o 


g 
o 


a 

HH 

>1 

CJ 

0) 

^ 

3 

^ 

-l-= 

Ph 

o 

«4-i 

<4-c 

O 

03 

o 

a 

CD 

S 

-^3     * 

^ 

C5 

^ 

C- 

tc 

<J 

CO 
0) 


o 
pq 

a; 


o 

ST 


co" 

lo" 


Ol 


S 


o 

CJ 


OS 


O-l 

C 
c3 


S 

0) 
03 


S  <=! 

£;  "  o  o 

^     ^     cS  CO  *<- 

O    *  >-5  (_) 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 
Chart  No.  2. 


23 


Comparison  of  Per  Cent  of  Increase  in  Xet  Valuation,  Tax  Rate  and  State  Ap- 
portionment in  Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey  From  191 7-18  to  1921-22.* 

Per  Cent 


350 


300 


260 


200 


150 


100 


50 


- 

\ 

V 

\ 

\ 

\ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

^ 

/ 

^ 

/ 

^ 

^ 

/ 

^ 

— ■ 

■ — 

1917-18 


18-19 


19-20 


20-21 


21-22 


Per  cent  of  increase  in  net  valuation  of  property. 

Per  cent  of  increase  in  school  tax  rate. 

Per  cent  of  increase  in  amount  received  from  state. 


*p 


Percentages  are  computed  upon  1917-18  as  the  base. 


24 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 


CQ 
< 


< 


6h 
O 

a 

o 

5 
w 

Ph 


> 

o 


m 

o 

O 


o 
s 


O 

2 

<; 
^ 


H 
Z 

O 
I— I 

O 

13 
O 

s 

< 

s 
o 

U 


-  o 

O 

^ 

o  o 

, 

o 

O 

o 

o  o 

-^  -e 

OD 

d 

-— ^ 

d 

o  o 

CC 

r-. 

C-; 

o 

o  o 

g  '^ 

w 

o 

c: 

o  o 

cq    s 

>^ 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO 

CO    IM 

'Si 
CO 

■* 

r^ 

■^    1—1 

* 

I-! 

o 

vO     » 

o 

o 

t^ 

Oi  d 

^^•o> 

b 

s 

t— f 

T— 1 
1—1 

CO     C2 

C^l    1-1 

t^ 

'+ 

r^ 

lO    lO 

o 

CD 

'^ 

1— ( 

00  »o 

iiJ 

o 

-*• 

lO 

o 

>o  CO 

^^ 

Q, 

t— 1 

1—1     r-H 

^ 

CO 

» 

Ci 

CO 

00 

Oi  CO 

vO   * 

=w 

O 

b 

o 

lO    OJ 

o* 

(M 

CO  CO 

1—1 

IM    Ol 

0  o  o 

01  lO    l> 


«D    O 
t^    (M 


CD    lO     00'    rH     GO 


iM    iC 


t^    CO    <M 
(M    ■*    '^ 


00 


o 


C3    C5    CO 


0  o  ^ 

01  (M    lO 


i      S  =2 

?i,       -^  O  03 

^    <^  o  !i:» 

-^     S  CO  S 

«  -S  ^  I 

ex    o  ^2 


":s    ci    « 
^  c^  fe- 


r-H    t^    (M    <M    t^ 

to  1*  00  GO  CO 


^    C:   -t<    Tt<    03 

CO  CO  1— '  1— '  lo 
I— I  1— I  t^  i^  t^ 

C-f  CO"  "O"  Iff  GO 


CO   '^    CO   CO 

O-l    Ci    ^    CO 

O   O   O   O   1-1 


o  r^  C2  o  o 

O   O   CO    CO   t^ 


00    (M    O   O   t^ 
O    GO    t^    t^    t^ 

c-i_  Tt<_^  00^  i-H^  ^^ 
iC  tC  iC  tC  oo" 


&5* 


^1 


CO    Ol    t^    (M 

r^    1-1   CO   o 
O    O   O   O   1-1 


lO  kC  o  o  >o 

!M    GO    00    GO    00 
Tf    lO    O    CO    CO 

t>r  '*"  o  (m"  00 

O     >0     CO     r-^     lO 

GO    00    t^    05^  "-^ 
(m"  (m"  cf  (M"  CO 


GO  03  O  "-I  (M 

i-<  1— I  C^  (N  C^ 

t-.  CO  C3  o  "-I 

1— I  1— I  1— I  (M  r-J 

Ci  cji  C3  C3  c; 


CD 


u 

3 
CO 

>J 

fl 

:3 
o 

o 

2  «^ 

t,      CC 

3  <g, 


o 
a 


si 


00 


Oi 


CD       SJ       =3 

-S  13  ^ 

-1-= 


o 

o3 


3 
o 

c 
o 


§   o 

H   :Z   Ph 
*     » 


PART  III 

CLASSIFICATION  AND  PROGRESS  OF  CHILDREN 

The  teachers'  registers  for  a  number  of  years  were  consulted  and 
a  distribution  of  age  groups  for  the  children  enrolled  in  the  Lawrence 
Township  schools  was  procured  as  given  in  Table  XIII.  It  will  be 
noted  that  the  seven  year  olds  have  been  the  largest  age  group  from 
1917  to  the  present  school  year.  At  present,  there  are  more  eight  and 
ten  year  olds  registered  than  there  are  seven  year  olds.  The  dropping 
off  in  the  age  groups  becomes  very  evident  with  the  beginning  of  the 
thirteenth  year  of  age.  The  reason  why  the  withdrawals  from  school 
begin  at  this  point  in  this  table  is  due  to  the  fact  that  the  high  school 
enrolment  is  not  included.  Since  relatively  few  children  begin  to  go 
to  school  in  Lawrence  Township  before  six  years  of  age  and  since  there 
is  no  evidence  in  the  figures  which  are  submitted  later  that  there  has 
been  any  great  percentage  of  rapid  promotion  in  the  school  system  and 
since  so  many  of  them  go  through  the  reception  grade  making  the 
elementary  course  really  a  nine  year  course,  the  rapid  drop  in  attend- 
ance of  the  13,  14  and  15  year  old  children  has  additional  significance. 
Other  significant  elements  in  this  table  are  the  percentages  of  change 
over  the  period  191 5-1920  in  the  seven  to  the  eleven  year  old  group 
inclusive  and  the  dropping  off  when  the  twelve  year  old  group  is 
reached. 

The  facts  shown  in  Table  XIII  are  given  in  Table  XIV  so  that 
the  percentage  which  each  age  group  bears  to  total  enrolment  is 
shown. 

In  Chart  No.  3,  the  age  distribution  for  pupils  for  1921  is  shown. 
It  is  rather  strange  to  find  the  nine  year  olds  fewer  in  number  than 
the  seven  and  eight  year  olds  and  also  to  find  the  eleven  and  twelve 
year  olds  dropping  so  far  below  the  ten  year  olds.  Some  of  the  rea- 
sons for  these  age  conditions  may  be  the  moving  of  the  younger  fam- 
ilies into  the  township  and  the  failure  of  the  schools  to  keep  the  in- 
terest of  children  of  the  older  group.  The  need  for  discovering, 
through  the  agency  of  a  permanent  continuing  census,  all  of  the  chil- 
dren who  reside  within  the  township  so  that  comparison  may  be  made 
with  the  school  enrolment  figures  again  becomes  apparent  in  thi& 
chart. 


26  Survey  of  Public  School  System 

TABLE  XIII 

Distribution  of  Age  Groups  for  the  Years  1910-11  and  1915-16  to  1921-22 

WITH  Changes  and  Per  Cent  of  Change. 

Lawrence  Township,  IMereer  Count}',  New  Jersey. 
^Elementary  S  hools  Only) 


1910- 

1915- 

1916- 

1917- 

1918- 

1919- 

1920- 

1921- 

of  Change 
1915 

]e  from 
to  1920 

of  Change 
1920 

Age 

1911 

1916 

1917 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

*1922 

§  5 

«3« 

la 

**4  5 

3 

17 

13 

20 

12 

12 

9 

1 

14 

466 

-8 

-47 

5-6 

32 

52 

56 

62 

54 

76 

59 

46 

20 

62 

7 

13 

6-7 

45 

70 

71 

75 

86 

86 

88 

71 

35 

78 

18 

26 

7-8 

32 

57 

59 

82 

89 

90 

102 

82 

25 

78 

45 

79 

8-9 

51 

58 

61 

70^ 

89 

82 

90 

88 

7 

14 

32 

55 

9-10 

37 

64 

50 

70 

78 

86 

93 

79 

27 

73 

29 

45 

10-11 

45 

58 

61 

60 

60 

73 

87 

91, 

3 

7 

29 

50 

11-12 

45 

50 

68 

73 

59 

69 

88 

77 

5 

11 

'38 

76 

12-13 

31 

45 

49 

68 

69 

66 

59 

77 

14 

45 

14 

31 

13-14 

33 

56 

52 

43 

72 

57 

54 

55 

23 

70 

_2 

-4 

14-15 

29 

28 

34 

37 

23 

37 

34 

38 

-1 

-3 

6 

21 

15-16 

12 

17 

13 

18 

16 

12 

13 

9 

5 

42 

-4 

—23 

16-17 

5 

4 

3 

2 

2 

1 

4 

-1 

-20 

-4 

-ICO 

17-18 

3 

1 

2 

2 

2 

_2 

-66 

-1 

-ICO 

18-19 

1 

1 

-1 

-100 

Total 

404 

578 

50^ 

m-i 

709 

747 

776 

718 

174 

43 

198 

34 

*Enrolment  for  1921-22  wa^  taken  up  to  January  1922. 
**Includes  children  four  years  of  age  and  not  yet  five. 
Other  groups  similarly  interpreted. 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 
TABLE  XIV 


27 


DlSTRIBUTIOX   IN  PERCENTAGES   OF  AgE   GrOUPS   FOR   THE   YEARS   1910-11    AND 

1915-16  TO  1921-22 

Lawrence  Township,  Mercer  County,  New  Jersey 
(Elementary  Schools  Only) 


Change 

Change 

Age 

1910- 

1915- 

1916- 

1917- 

191S- 

1919- 

1920- 

1921- 

from  1910 

Jrom  1915 

1911 

1916 

1917 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922* 

to  1915 

to  1920 

**4-5 

.8 

2.9 

2.2 

2.9 

1.7 

1.6 

1.2 

.2 

2.1 

-1.7 

5-6 

7.9 

9.1 

9.6 

9.1 

7.6 

10.1 

7.6 

6.4 

1.2 

-1.5 

6-7 

11.2 

12.1 

12.0 

11.0 

12.1 

11. 4 

11.3 

9.9 

.9 

-.8 

7-8 

7.9 

9.9 

9.9 

12.0 

12.5 

12.0 

13.2 

11.4 

2.0 

3.3 

8-9 

12.6 

10.1 

10.3 

10.3 

12.5 

10.8 

11.6 

12.2 

-2.5 

1.5 

9-10 

9.2 

11.0 

8.4 

10.3 

11.0 

11.4 

12.1 

11.0 

1.8 

1.1 

10-11 

11.2 

10.1 

10.3 

8.8 

8.5 

10.2 

11.2 

12.6 

-1.1 

1.1 

11-12 

11.2 

8.7 

11.5 

10.7 

8.3 

9.6 

11.3 

10.7 

-2.5 

2,6 

12-13 

7.5 

7.8 

8.3 

10.0 

9.8 

8.8 

7.6 

10.7 

.3 

_  2 

13-14 

8.2 

9.7 

8.8 

6.3 

10.2 

7.6 

6.9 

7.7 

1.5 

-2.8 

14-15 

7.2 

4.8 

5.7 

5.4 

3.2 

4.8 

4.4 

5.3 

2.4 

-.4 

15-16 

3.0 

2.9 

2.2 

2.6 

2.3 

1.6 

1.6 

1.3 

.1 

-1.3 

16-17 

1.2 

.7 

.5 

.3 

.3 

.1 

.6 

—  .5 

—  .7 

17-18 

.7 

.1 

.3 

.3 

-'6 

-.1 

18-19 

.2 

.1 

# 

-.1 

-.1 

Total 

100.0 

100  0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

5.0 

0.0 

*Enrolment  for  1921-22  was  taken  up  to  January  1922. 
**Includes  children  four  years  of  age  and  not  yet  five. 
Other  groups  similarly  interpreted. 


Enrolment 
by  Grades 


The  elementary  school  organization  for  Lawrence  Town- 
ship has  been  so  developed  that  there  are  nine  elementary 
grades  instead  of  the  customary  eight  grades.  The  so- 
called  "reception  grade"  into  which  many  children  enter  before  being 
accepted  in  the  first  grade  includes  children  four  and  a  half  years  of 
age  to  ch'ldren  nine  years  of  age.  After  this  grade,  the  educational 
organization  follows  the  usual  eight  grade  plan. 

In  Table  XV  will  be  found  the  distribution  of  pupils  by  grades 
for  the  period  1910-1911  and  for  each  year  of  the  period  1915-1921. 
During  the  period  1915-1920,  the  reception  grade  has  increased  13%, 
while  the  first  grade  has  been  reduced  6%,  indicating  the  stress  which 


28 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 


is  being  placed  upon  entrance  in  the  reception  grade  before  the  first 
grade  is  reached.  The  largest  percentages  of  increase  in  grade  enrol- 
ment during  this  period  have  taken  place  in  grades  3  to  7. 
The  32%  increase  in  total  population  for  the  period  1910-1915,  shown 
in  Table  V,  has  evidently  already  affected  grades  3  to  7.  In  the  very 
near  future,  it  will  affect  grades  7  and  8  so  that  there  must  be  expected 
a  very  large  percentage  of  increase. 

TABLE  XV 

Distribution  of  pupils  by  Grades  for  the  Years  1910-11  and    1915-16   to 
1921-22,  Lawrence  Township,  Mercer  County.  New  Jersey. 


, 

!U 

^ 

S 

§» 

« 

e 

^ 

-« 

gi:^ 

0 

i  ^ 

0 

Grade 

1910- 

1915- 

1916- 

1917- 

^5/5- 

1919- 

1920- 

1921* 

;^ 

1911 

1916 

1917 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

Change 
1911  to 

Oh 

Change 
1915  to 

Re- 

cep- 

tion 

85 

126 

133 

174 

164 

169 

142 

94 

41 

48 

16 

13 

I 

57 

82" 

55 

74 

75 

49 

77 

82 

25 

44 

-5 

-6 

II 

51 

52 

86 

95 

*74 

118 

59 

93 

1 

2 

7 

13 

III 

49 

82 

54 

91 

99 

84 

133 

62 

33 

67 

51 

62 

IV 

34 

69 

73 

58 

76 

101 

101 

104 

35 

103 

32 

46 

V 

57 

60 

70 

82 

90 

97 

95 

101 

3 

5 

35 

58 

VI 

30 

49 

46 

43 

43 

59 

86 

76 

19 

63 

37 

76 

VII 

23 

32 

43 

39 

47 

39 

53 

64 

9 

39 

21 

66 

VIII 

18 

26 

32 

26 

41 

31 

30 

42 

8 

44 

4 

15 

Total 

404 

578 

592 

682 

709 

747 

776 

718 

174 

43 

198 

34 

*Yearly  enrolment  for  1921-22  school  j^ear  taken  up  to  January  1922. 

Table  XVI  gives  the  situation  shown  in  Table  XV  in  terms  of 
the  percentage  of  total  enrolment  for  any  year  found  in  each  grade  of 
the  elementary  school.  The  same  tendencies  which  were  noted  in 
the  other  table  may  be  followed  through  this  table.  It  is  particularly 
noticeable  that  the  average  percentage  for  each  grade  shows  a  marked 
difference  in  the  percentages  of  the  grades  "reception  to  5"  and  between 
the  grades  6  to  8.  The  fact  that  less  than  5%  of  the  children  have 
been  in  the  8th  grade  during  this  period  leads  to  these  questions: — 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 


29 


Does  the  nine  grade  system  tire  pupils  out  before  they  reach  the  8th 
grade?  Have  all  the  children  of  the  community  been  enrolled  in 
school  during  their  compulsory  school  ages?  Does  the  failure  to  pro- 
vide 7th  and  8th  grades  in  all  of  the  schools  affect  the  percentage  of 
enrolment  in  these  grades?  Has  the  holding  power  of  the  school  suf- 
fered because  of  the  failure  to  properly  develop  the  curriculum  or  to 
offer  children  the  advantages  that  are  being  offered  in  the  nearby  city 
of  Trenton? 


Chart  No.  3. 


rio.c^!ifl>,gO 


_  A^i  "« ywrr  - 

Distribution  of  Pupils  in  Lawrence  ToAvnship,  Mercer  County,  New  Jersey 

By  Ages  for   1921. 

(Elementary  Pupils  only) 


Reception 
Grade 


The  large  percentage  of  children  in  the  reception  grade  for 
each  of  the  years  shown  in  Table  XV'I  leads  to  the  ques- 
tion whether  the  reception  grade  has  not  in  large  part  sup- 
planted the  first  grade.  It  will  be  noted  that  21%  is  the  average  for 
the  reception  grade,  while  10.9%  has  been  the  average  for  the  first 
grade  for  this  particular  period.  The  reception  and  first  grades  have 
on  an  average  included  32%  of  all  the  elementary  children  enrolled  in 
the  elementary  schools  of  Lawrence  Township.  Since  the  reception 
grade  is  merely  supplementary  to  the  first  grade,  the  value  of  this 
reception  grade  can  be  seriously  questioned.  The  decrease  in  the 
percentage  of  children  in  the  3rd  grade  for  the  year  1921-1922  and 
similar  marked  decreases  at  other  periods  for  other  grades  lead  to  the 


30 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 


suggestion  that  more  careful  analysis  be  made  of  the  prornotional  pro- 
gram than  has  been  possible  in  this  study. 

TABLE  XVI 

Percentage  Distribution  of  pupils  by  Grades  for  the  Years  1910-11  and 

1915-16  to  1921-22 

Lawrence  Township,  Mercer  County,  New  Jersej^ 


1.910 

1915 

1916 

1917 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921* 

drnile 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

to 

Average 

1911 

1916 

1917 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

1922 

Reception 

21.1 

21.8 

22  A 

25.5 

23.2 

22.6 

18.3 

13.2 

21.0 

I 

14.1 

14.2 

9.4 

10.8 

10.6 

6.9 

9.9 

11.3 

10.9 

II 

12.7 

9.0 

14.5 

13.9 

10.5 

15.8 

7.6 

11.5 

11.9 

III 

12.1 

14.2 

9.1 

13.4 

13.9 

11.2 

17.1 

9.1 

12.6 

IV 

8.4 

11.9 

12.3 

8.5 

10.8 

13.5 

13.0 

14.7 

11.6 

\' 

14.1 

10.3 

11.9 

12.1 

12.6 

12.9 

12.2 

13.9 

12.5 

VI 

7.4 

8.5 

7.9 

6.3 

6.1 

7.8 

11.1 

11.5 

8.3 

VII 

5.8 

5.5 

7.2 

5.7 

6.6 

5.2 

6.8 

8.9 

6.5 

VIII 

4.3 

4.5 

5.4 

3.8 

5.7 

4.1 

3.9 

5.9 

.       4.7 

Total 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

100.0 

*Enrolment  for  1921-22  was  taken  iip  to  January  1922. 

Inspection  of  Chart  No.  4  shows  a  valley  in  the  curve  of  enrol- 
ment at  the  2nd  grade.  This  salient  in  the  curve  is,  without  doubt, 
caused  by  spreading  the  enrolment  of  grades  i  and  2  over  three 
grades  as  it  is  beng  done  today  in  Lawrence  Township. 

.       .       Table  XVII  presents  the  age  grade  statistics  for  the 

^^     ^  school  year  1 921-1922.     The  age  variability  for  all 

*  ^  -^  of  the  grades  is  exceedingly  marked,  even  covering 

a  span  of  seven  years  for  the  2nd  and  4th  grades.  It  should  be  noted 
that  two  children,  nine  years  of  age,  are  still  in  the  reception  grade, 
that  five  children  who  are  ten  and  ten  and  a  half  years  of  age  are  still 
in  the  first  grade  and  that  one  child,  thirteen  years  of  age,  is  still  in 
the  2nd  grade. 

In  making  this  age  grade  table,  one  and  a  half  years  were  taken 
as  the  normal  age  span  for  any  single  grade.  The  children  older  than 
those  within  the  normal  age  group  are  called  over-age  for  each  grade 
and  those  younger  than  the  normal  age  span  are  called  under-age  for 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 


31 


Variation  in  Over-Age 
Conditions  Over  a 
Period  of  Years 


Chart  No.  4 


2m. 


each  grade  group.  The  percentage  of  over-age  children  in  the  Law- 
rence Township  schools  varies  from  24%  in  the  8th  grade  to  45%  in 
the  6th  grade.  The  other  grades  range  between  35%  and  39%. 
The  total  percentage  of  children  over  age  is  37.  The  percentage  of 
children  who  are  under-age  for  their  grades  varies  from  i%  for  the 
reception  grade  to  25%  for  grade  4. 

In  the  study  of  the  Hackensack  schools  made  in  June  1921, 
41.9%  of  all  the  elementary  school  children  were  over-age  on  the 
basis  of  the  one  and  one-half  year  age  span. 

In  Table  XVIII  will  be  found  the  present 
distribution  of  pupils  normal  age,  over  age 
and  under  age  for  the  years  1910-1911  and 
for  the  six  years  from  1915-1916  on.  One  of 
the  most  significant  problems  requiring  solution  in  any  school  system 
is  the  reduction  of  the  number  of  over  age  children  and  the  correspond- 
ing increase  of  the  number  of  under 
age  children.  It  is  significant  to 
point  out  from  Table  XVIII  that 
the  percentages  of  change  which 
have  taken  place  in  the  over  age 
section  of  this  table  for  the  period 
1915— 1921  indicate  decreases  in  over 
age  children  for  all  grades  except 
5  and  6,  but  the  total  change  in 
over  age  conditions  from  the  year 
1915-1916  to  the  year  1921-1922 
has  been  a  zero  change.  The  per- 
centage of  children  who  are  under 
age  for  their  grades  has  increased 
slightly  during  this  same  period, 
but  this  is  balanced  by  slight  de- 
crease, during  this  same  period,  of  the  percentage  of  children  who  are 
normal  age.  Significant  percentages  are  those  for  grades  3,  5  and  8 
of  the  under-age  section  of  Table  XVIII  where  very  large  percentage 
increases  have  been  made  for  the  period  191 5  to  1921.  These  large 
percentages  are  partially  due  to  the  small  base  upon  which  the  per- 
*  centages  were  made. 


R      I      a     a     a     ^[     v     ^    4m 

Changes  in  Enrolment  by  Grades 

for 

1911,  1915  and  1920 


32 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 


TABLE  XVII 
Age  Grade  Table  for  the  Elementary  Schools  of  Lawrence  Township, 
New  Jersey.     Compiled  Jan.  18, 1922. 
School  Year  1921-22.      Ages  Computed  as  of  Sept.  1,  1921. 


Grades 

Rec. 

1 

3 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

Ages 

0 

::  s 

05  1 
1  S5 

S  CO 

0 

2?  s 
to 

0 

00  ^ 

0?^ 

0 
il 

'-1 

0 

il 

=55  (SO 

0 

P 

^ 

1 

1 

5 

15 

15 

5^^ 

30 
15 

1 

2 

7 

4 

1 

31 

6 

12 
21 

16 

29 

61 

16 

8 

42 

7 

16 

45 
37 

"h 

7 
2 

8 
6 

17 
16 

5 

12 

8 

10 

46 

85 

2 

3 
6 

11 
11 

14 

8 

14 

3 

42 

9 

16 

46 
33 

9i 

4 

4 

6 
5 

7 
7 

6 
17 

10 

2 

10 
IQi 

11 

46 
45 

1 

1 

1 

6 

13 
10 

22 
17 

8 

1 

11 

13 

48 

lU 

7 
3 

12 

9 

9 
10 

1 

2 

29 

12 

15 

39  . 
38 

121 

1 

1 
1 
1 

11 
3 
1 

12 
5 

7 

10 
15 

4 

13 

11 

5 

36 

13^ 

5 

19 

14 

2 

1 

6 
3 

9 

4 

9 

27 

14i 

4 

11 

15 

1 

1 

4 

2 

8 

15i 

1 

1 

2 

16 

1 

1 

]6i 

2 

2 

17 

17f 

Total 

94 

82 

93 

62 

104 

101 

76 

64 

42 

718 

N.  A. 

60 

49 

49 

32 

39 

50 

32 

40 

25 

376 

0.  A. 

33 

32 

35 

21 

38 

38 

34 

23 

10 

264 

U.  A. 

1 

1 

9 

9 

27 

13 

10 

1 

7 

78 

%  N.  A. 

64 

60 

53 

50 

38 

49 

42 

63 

60 

52 

%  0.  A. 

35 

39 

37 

36 

37 

38 

45 

36 

24 

37 

%  U.  A. 

1 

1 

10 

14 

25 

13 

13 

1 

16 

11 

N.  A. — Normal  Age.     O.  A. — Overage.     U.  A. — Underage. 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey  33 

TABLE  XVIII 

The  Percentage  Distribution  op  Pupils  of  Normal  Age,  Over  Age  and 
Under  Age  for  the  Years  1910-11,  1915-16  to  1921-22. 

Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 
Normal  Age 


Grades 

R 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

/ 

S 

Total 

1910-11 

56 

35 

45 

53 

44 

40 

40 

9 

56 

44 

1915-16 

57 

49 

40 

59 

43 

67 

59 

38 

54 

53 

1916-17 

62 

69 

45 

41 

30 

40 

46 

37 

44 

49 

1917-18 

51 

45 

47 

35 

36 

31 

44 

44 

35 

43 

1918-19 

52 

44 

50 

57 

49 

32 

33 

51 

44 

47 

1919-20 

57 

49 

42 

45 

50 

41 

32 

49 

42 

47 

1920-21 

54 

52 

55 

39 

54 

49 

50 

40 

70 

50 

1921-22 

64 

60 

53 

52 

38 

49 

42 

63 

60 

52 

Per  Cent  of  Change 

1910-11  to  1915-16 

2 

40 

-9 

11 

-2 

68 

48 

322 

-4 

20 

Per  Cent  of  Change 

1915-16  to  1921-22 

12 

24 

33 

-11 

-12 

-27 

-28 

65 

11 

-2 

Over  Age 


Grades 

R 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

1910-11 

40 

58 

51 

43 

56 

56 

53 

87 

33 

51 

1915-16 

30 

46 

46 

37 

40 

30 

31 

44 

42 

37 

1916-17 

29 

31 

47 

54 

66 

56 

46 

37 

44 

45 

1917-18 

38 

49 

44 

58 

55 

69 

51 

49 

62 

50 

1918-19 

40 

56 

38 

31 

43 

56 

65 

36 

29 

43 

1919-20 

36 

45 

40 

38 

40 

54 

61 

46 

23 

42 

1920-21 

40 

40 

29 

32 

31 

40 

38 

38 

27 

36 

1921-22 

35 

39 

37 

31 

37 

38 

45 

36 

24 

37 

Per  Cent  of  Change 

1910-11  to  1915-16 

-25 

-21 

-10 

-14 

-29 

-52 

-40 

-38 

27 

-27 

Per  Cent  of  Change 

1915-16   to  1921-22 

17 

-15 

-20 

-16 

-8 

27 

30 

-18 

-43 

00 

34 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 
Under  Age 


Grades 

R 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

8 

1910-11 

4 

7 

4 

4 

0 

4 

7 

4 

11 

5 

1915-16 

13 

5 

14 

4. 

17 

3 

11 

18 

4 

10 

1916-17 

9 

0 

8 

5 

4 

4 

8 

6 

12 

6 

1917-18 

11 

6 

9 

7 

9 

0 

5 

7 

3 

7 

1918-19 

8 

0 

12 

12 

8 

12 

2 

13 

17 

10 

1919-20 

7 

6 

18 

17 

10 

5 

7 

5 

35 

11 

1920-21 

6 

8 

16 

29 

15 

11 

12 

22 

3 

14 

1921-22 

1 

1 

10 

17 

25 

13 

13 

1 

16 

11 

Per  Cent  of  Change 

1910-11  to  1915-16 

225 

-28 

250 

0 

-25 

57 

350 

-63 

100 

Per  Cent  of  Change 

1915-16  to  1921-22 

-92 

-80 

-29 

325 

47 

333 

18 

-94 

300 

10 

The  very  great  discrepancy  between  the  percentage  of  children 
who  are  over  age  and  the  percentage  who  are  under  age  can  be  seen 
from  the  black  and  shaded  portions  in  Chart  No.  5. 

Chart  No.  5. 


1910-1911 
1915-1916 
1916-1917 
1917-1918 
1918-1919 
1919-1920 
1920-1921 
1921-1922 


V////llh 


Over  Age 
Normal  Age 
Under  Age 


Showing  the  pupils  in  the  Elementary  Schools  of  LawTence  Township,  Mercer 
Countv,  New  Jersey  of  normal  age,  over-age  and  under-age  for  the  years  1910- 
1911,  1915-1916  to  1921 -i  922  inclusive. 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 
TABLE  XIX 


35 


Showing  the  Number  of  Pupils  who  are  Less  Than  One  Year  Over  Age, 

One  to  Two  Years  Over  Age  and  Two  or  More  Years  Over 

Age  for  the  Years  1910-11,  1915-16  to  1921-22  Inclusive 

liEwrence  Township,  New  Jersey 
Less  Than  One  Year  Over  Age 


Grades 

R 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

/ 

8 

Total 

%  of  Enrolment 

1910-11 

16 

8 

11 

5 

9 

17 

7 

12 

5 

90 

22 

1915-16 

20 

20 

14 

19 

9 

7 

12 

7 

11 

119 

20 

1916-17 

25 

11 

25 

12 

21 

19 

10 

15 

9 

147 

25 

1917-18 

35 

12 

19 

22 

13 

21 

10 

11 

11 

154 

23 

1918-19 

41 

21 

14 

15 

16 

21 

14 

11 

8 

161 

23 

1919-20 

40 

14 

29 

14 

22 

27 

13 

10 

7 

176 

24 

1920-21 

37 

19 

11 

25 

14 

22 

13 

8 

7 

156 

20 

1921-22 

22 

14 

22 

14 

23 

21 

17 

14 

4 

151 

21 

071  e  To  Tivo  Years  Over  Age 


Grades 

R 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

1910-11 

11 

8 

6 

7 

6 

5 

5 

5 

1 

54 

13 

191,5-16 

4 

8 

6 

16 

7 

18 

12 

3 

2 

76 

13 

1916-17 

11 

4 

9 

9 

12 

11 

5 

7 

2 

70 

11 

1917-18 

14 

11 

15 

15 

5 

18 

8 

5 

2 

93 

13 

1918-19 

19 

9 

8 

7 

9 

17 

11 

5 

4 

89 

12 

1919-20 

15 

3 

10 

9 

9 

16 

14 

6 

0 

82 

11 

1920-21 

15 

12 

0 

2 

11 

11 

17 

7 

1 

81 

10 

1921-22 

9 

9 

11 

7 

10 

14 

13 

8 

3 

84 

10 

Two  Years  or  More  Over  Age 


Grades 

R 

1 

2 

3 

4 

5 

6 

7 

8 

1910-11 

7 

11 

9 

12 

4 

10 

4 

3 

0 

60 

15 

1915-16 

6 

10 

4 

13 

12 

10 

5 

2 

1 

63 

11 

1916-17 

3 

1 

6 

18 

15 

9 

6 

2 

3 

63 

10 

1917-18 

17 

13 

8 

15 

14 

17 

4 

3 

3 

94 

13 

1918-19 

6 

12 

6 

10 

10 

12 

3 

1 

0 

60 

8 

1919-20 

6 

5 

8 

9 

10 

9 

9 

2 

0 

58 

8 

1920-21 

5 

0 

1 

7 

6 

5 

3 

5 

0 

32 

4 

1921-22 

2 

9 

2 

0 

5 

3 

4 

1 

3 

29 

4 

36  Survey  of  Public  School  System 

The  number  of  pupils  who  are  less  than  one  year  over  age,  one  to 
two  years  over  age,  and  two  years  and  more  over  age  for  each  grade 
for  the  period  1910  to  1921  is  shown  in  Table  XIX.  The  very  sig- 
nificant fact  about  this  table  is  the  large  number  of  pupils  one  to  two 
years  over  age  and  two  years  and  more  over  age  in  the  reception  and 
the  first  grades.  The  consistent  piling  up  of  over  age  children  in 
grades  5  and  6  for  this  same  period  of  years  is  a  situation  which  ought 
to  be  given  very  careful  attention  by  the  teachers  and  the  supervising 
principal. 

^      ,    „  Another  measure  of  the  efficiency  of  school  organi- 

Grade  Frogress  ...  1  •  1     1  -i  j  1  1 

zation  IS  the  rate  at  which  children  progress  through 

the  various  grades  of  the  elementary  and  high  school. 
A  study  of  grade  progress  in  Lawrence  Township  is  immediately 
complicated  by  the  reception  grade.  If  the  progress  of  children 
through  school  is  measured  on  the  basis  of  their  being  required  to  pass 
through  nine  grades  instead  of  the  customary  eight,  it  is  obvious  that 
more  children  will  make  normal  or  regular  progress  in  each  grade  than 
would  be  the  case  if  the  schools  of  the  township  were  measured  against 
the  accomplishment  of  children  in  school  systems  organized  on  an 
eight  grade  basis.  The  difference  between  these  two  methods  of  in- 
terpreting the  situation  can  be  seen  in  Table  XX. 

The  factual  basis  for  making  a  grade  progress  study  is  the  cumu- 
lative individual  record  card  for  all  pupils.  Such  record  cards  were 
not  accessible  in  Lawrence  Township.  The  basic  facts  for  the  prog- 
ress study  in  Table  XX  were  collected  by  the  individual  classroom 
teachers  from  their  knowledge  of  the  children  and  also  from  the 
actual  statements  of  the  children.  Because  of  this,  the  facts  for 
individual  grades  are  not  as  reliable  as  could  be  wished.  The 
analysis  of  progress  which  children  make  through  the  grades  of  a 
school  system  is  essential  to  efficient  administration.  The  collection 
of  complete  and  accurate  data  in  this  field  should  be  considered  an 
index  in  the  future  of  good  school  administration  in  Lawrence  Town- 
ship. 

In  Table  XX,  the  numbers  and  percentages  of  children  making 
slow,  normal  and  rapid  progress  are  given  on  three  bases,  the  first 
involving  all  of  the  children  enrolled,  the  second  involving  all  of  those 
children  who  have  at  some  time  or  other  attended  other  school  sys- 
tems than  the  local  school  system  and  third,  involving  non-transfers 
or  only  those  children  who  have  always  been  members  of  the  local 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 


37 


n 

CO 

12; 

i% 

T-H 

o 

1— 1 

IS 

ST 

^ 

a 

^ 

<J 

u. 

hJ 

^ 

o 

03 

-*J 

H 

3 

o 

O 

> 

£ 

H 

+3 

K 

0 

^ 

o 

o 

(+-• 

r/> 

o 

M 

CO 

K 

<rl 

O 

o 

« 

Pk 

CO 

*<?^ 

CO    g 

e 

CO  05  oo 

IM    '-H   •* 

=2 

i?^ 

CO    lO    i— 1 

O    CO 

CD 

s 

51 

(M     T-H 

•* 

En   • 

Os 

50 

•<^ 

s 
o 

Oi     § 

^ 

e  * 

O    i-O    C^ 

CO  CO  •«* 

CO 

o  ■*  --1 

(M    lO    (M 

o 

ol 

r-1    (M     i-H 

, 

-* 

V. 

eu 

«2 

-« 

a 

Oi     CO 

00    '^ 

Ci   ■*    iM 

Tj<      ^      IC 

IC 

c/j   O   >-< 

t^    (M 

•o 

CO 

5~ 

1-H 

(M 

ve. 

f^ 

6 

E-. 

^•2 

05     § 

O    CO    CO 

C^    ■*    i-O 

lO 

O    GO   CD 

'SH    CO    (M 

lO 

Q    -O 

I— 1 

(M 

s 

o 

■» 

-« 

e 

s~ 

^     OO 

00    S 

lO   CO   o 

CO   O   '^ 

00 

H«3 

^      53 

t^    ^    CO 

CD    CO 

I— 1 

§ 

5  -* 

Tl^    (M 

t^ 

J 

s 

£ 

O 

s 

fiq 

«> 

1 

o 

^ 

E>( 

C-l     i-H     lO 

05   CD    »0 

00 

^    CO   I^ 

(M    •<*    C^ 

I— 1 

e  ^ 

(M    CO    1-1 

t^ 

6 

OJ 

CO 

(D    m 

m    ^^    m 

CO    !jC   OJ 

" 

^.  2  ^ 

"»    22    K 

^  ft  2 

CO     bC   P 

S  —  s. 

a?      O      fn 

CO      fl      ^ 

p2 

1      St 

bC    bC    bC 

.2  .a  .a 

Cl-I 

o 

CO      fl      M 

13  IS  s 

fc£    bJC    M 

c3    rt     rt 

XJ 

a   a   a 

a  a  a 

fl 

rti    ^   ^ 

-u    ->^    += 

3 

c3     c3     cj 

C     C     C 

c 

a  a  s 

0)    QJ    a; 

t)     w     o 

"S 

odd 

U       td       tn 

O     Q^     Q^ 

■1^ 
o 

Iz;^  ^ 

Ph  Ph   Ph 

H 

75252 


38  Survey  of  Public  School  System 

school  system.  For  each  of  these  three  groups  of  children,  the  facts 
are  given  with  the  elementary  school  considered  as  a  nine  grade  school 
and  also  with  the  elementary  school  organization  on  an  eight  grade 
basis.  The  true  percentage  of  those  making  slow  progress  is  nearer 
66%  of  the  total  enrolment  than  the  29%  shown  on  the  nine  year 
basis.  The  percentage  of  children  making  slow  progress  of  those  who 
have  been  transferred  into  the  local  system  is  nearer  the  74%  indi- 
cated when  the  school  system  is  considered  an  eight  grade  school  sys- 
tem than  the  42%  indicated  when  the  school  system  is  considered  a 
nine  grade  school  system.  In  like  manner,  the  percentage  of  children 
who  have  never  attended  any  other  school  system  who  are  making 
slov/  progress  is  more  nearly  indicated  by  the  62%  figure  of  Table  XX 
than  the  23%  figure  of  the  same  table.  Reckoned  on  either  basis, 
the  children  who  have  never  attended  any  other  school  system  pro- 
gress more  regularly  than  the  children  who  have  been  transferred  into 
the  Lawrence  Township  schools  from  other  school  systems.  A  sim- 
ilar conclusion  has  resulted  where  studies  of  non-transfers  and  trans- 
fers have  been  made  for  other  school  systems.* 

Charts  No.  6  and  No.  7  show  clearly  the  rather  satisfactory 
situation  when  progress  is  studied  on  a  nine  grade  basis  and  the  most 
unsatisfactory  situation  which  results  when  progress  is  studied  on  an 
eight  grade  basis  or  the  basis  which  is  most  commonly  employed  in 
our  school  systems.  The  validity  of  the  nine  grade  system  will  be 
further  discussed  under  the  measurement  of  the  achievement  of 
pupils. 

*  Hackensack,  N.  J.  School  Survey,  by  George  D.  Strayer  and  N.  L.  Enge!- 
hardt,  June  1921. 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 
Chart  No.  6. 


39 


Reception 

1st  Grade 

2nd  Grade 

3rd  Grade 

4th  Grade 

5th  Grade 

6th  Grade 

7th  Grade 

8th  Grade 


SO         io 


wiwiiiii/niiiii/iimmm 


vmiiimiiiiiiiiiiimm 


SloM'  Progress 
3     Normal  Progress 


^2m     Rapid  Progress 

Showing  the  percentage  'of  pupils  who  are  making  normal  progress,  slow 
progress  and  rapid  progress  in  grades  Reception  to  Eighth  inclusi\e  in  the  schools 
of  Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey  for  the  year  1921-22. 


1st  Grade 

2nd  Grade 

3rd  Grade 

4th  Grade 

5th  Grade 

6th  Grade 

7th  Grade 

8th  Grade 


Chart  No.  7 

\f  Zp         30  ^0 


90       100 


jjJlB       Slow 
I        I       Normal 


Showing  the  percentage  of  pupils  in  the  Elementary  Schools  of  Lawrence  Town- 
ship, Mercer  County,  New  Jersey  who  have  made  rapid,  normal  and  slow  pro- 
gress in  the  grades  t  to  VIII  inclusive,  computed  as  of  September  1st,  1921  for 
the  school  year   1921-22. 

In  this  computation  the  Reception  Grade  is  combined  with  the  1st  Grade 
and  the  elementary  course  is  considered  as  extending  over  eight  years. 


40 

Promotions  and 
Non-Promotions 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 

Table  XXI  gives  the  promotions,  double  promo- 
tions, and  non-promotions,  withdrawals  and  trans- 
fers in  Lawrence  Township  for  all  grades  in  the 

elementary  school  for  the  year  1910-1911  and  the  years  1916-1917  to 

1920-1921. 

TABLE  XXI 

Promotions,    Double    Promotions,    Non-Promotions,    Withdrawals    and 
Transfers  in  Lawrence  Township,  Mercer  County,  New  Jersey, 
Based  on  Enrolment  in  Each  Grade  at  End  of  Year — 
1911,   1917,   1918,  1919,  1920  and  1921. 

Including  the  percentages  of  totals  for  each  year. 


Promotion 

s 

Unre- 

Per- 

corded 

Total 

cent- 

Grades 

Re- 
cep- 
tion 

/ 

II 

/// 

IV 

V 

VI 

VII 

VIII 

With- 
draw- 
als 

number 

age  of 

total 

Cases 

1910-11 

38 

51 

37 

34 

19 

37 

19 

18 

14 

0 

267 

66 

1916-17 

76 

42 

82 

39 

57 

35 

36 

29 

9 

0 

405 

68 

1917-18 

125 

54 

77 

81 

44 

55 

33 

28 

21 

0 

518 

76 

1918-19 

70 

50 

65 

85 

76 

35 

36 

26 

27 

0 

470 

66 

1919-20 

93 

37 

109 

70 

82 

73 

42 

32 

22 

0 

560 

75 

1920-21 

73 

55 

44 

89 

82 

63 

61 

38 

24 

0 

527 

67 

Don  hle-Promoiions 


1910-11 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

.5 

1916-17 

17 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

17 

2.9 

1917-18 

0 

0 

C 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

1918-19 

60 

3 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

63 

9 

1919-20 

21 

0 

0 

0 

4 

10 

0 

0 

0 

0 

35 

4.7 

1920-21 

19 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

19 

3 

Non-Promotioris 


1910-11 

19 

2 

2 

13 

11 

13 

7 

4 

3 

0 

74 

18.8 

1916-17 

IS 

1 

3 

11 

15 

22 

8 

10 

20 

0 

108 

18 

1917-18 

13 

7 

5 

10 

5 

13 

5 

2 

4 

0 

64 

9 

1918-19 

28 

6 

0 

2 

11 

12 

8 

4 

0 

0 

71 

10  , 

1919-20 

18 

10 

6 

4 

2 

6 

3 

2 

0 

0 

51 

7 

1920-21 

13 

11 

11 

14 

10 

16 

17 

3 

1 

0 

96 

12 

Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 


41 


TABLE  'XXI— Continued 
Withdrawals 


1910-11 

9 

7 

4 

3 

3 

5 

0 

1 

0 

26 

58 

14 

1916-17 

11 

5 

3 

2 

12 

2 

5 

3 

0 

8 

51 

9 

1917-18 

21 

0 

8 

13 

9 

13 

4 

4 

0 

15 

87 

13 

1918-19 

6 

10 

5 

9 

6 

6 

3 

11 

0 

0 

56 

8 

1919-20 

18 

4 

6 

7 

8 

6 

6 

6 

0 

0 

61 

8.1 

1920-21 

17 

8 

3 

14 

9 

14 

4 

12 

5 

0 

81 

10.4 

Transjers 


1910-11 

0 

0 

0 

0 

2 

1 

0 

0 

0 

3 

0 

.7 

1916-17 

1 

S 

0 

0 

2 

0 

0 

0 

0 

0 

11 

2.1 

1917-18 

2 

1 

2 

0 

7 

0 

1 

0 

0 

0 

13 

2 

1918-19 

16 

5 

1 

3 

12 

1 

10 

1 

0 

0 

49 

7 

1919-20 

10 

7 

5 

4 

4 

2 

8 

0 

( 

0 

40 

5.2 

1920-21 

12 

18 

4 

9 

1 

2 

5 

0 

0 

0 

51 

6.6 

Totals 


1910-11 

68 

60 

33 

50 

35 

55 

27 

23 

17 

26 

404 

100 

1916-17 

123 

56 

88 

52 

86 

59 

49 

42 

29 

8 

592 

100 

1917-18 

161 

62 

92 

104 

65 

81 

43 

34 

25 

15 

682 

100 

1918-19 

180 

74 

71 

99 

105 

54 

57 

42 

27 

0 

709 

100 

1919-20 

160 

58 

126 

85 

100 

97 

59 

40 

22 

0 

747 

100 

1920-21 

129 

92 

62 

126 

102 

95 

87 

53 

30 

0 

776 

100 

*<i 


Chart  No.  8. 

Showing  the  percentage  of  promotions 
and  double  promotions  in  the  Elementary 
Schools  of  Lawrence  Township,  INIercer 
County,  New  Jersey  for  the  years  1911- 
1912,  1916-1917,  1917-1918,  1918-1919, 
1919-1920  and  1920-1921. 


n 


1919-  1920- 

1920  1921 

Doutle  Proootioni. 


42 
Failures  b\ 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 
As  far  as  can  be  ascertained,  the  subjects  which  retard 


children  to  the  greatest  degree  in  their  progress  through 
•^  the  Lawrence  Township  schools  are  arithmetic,  history, 

geography  and  spelling.  The  largest  percentage  of  failures  occurs  in 
arithmetic  for  each  of  the  years  shown  in  Table  XXII.  It  is  evidence 
of  lack  of  adjustment  within  the  courses  of  study  when  approximately 
20%  or  25%  of  the  children  fail  in  any  one  subject. 

TABLE  XXII 

Failures  by  Subjects  in  Lawrence  Township,  Mercer  County,  New  Jersey 

Elementary  Schools  for  Grades  III-IV-V-VI-VII-VIII* 
For  Years  1916-1917,  1919-1920  and  1920-1921 


1916-17 

1919-20 

1920-21 

Per 

Per 

Per 

No. 

No. 

Cent 

No. 

No. 

Cent 

No. 

No. 

Cent 

Subject 

0} 

En- 

oj 

of 

En- 

of 

of 

En- 

of 

Fail- 

rolled 

Fail- 

Fail- 

rolled 

Fail- 

Fail- 

rolled 

Fail- 

ures 

ures 

ures 

ures 

ures 

ures 

Arithmetic 

.52 

254 

20.5 

85 

331 

25.7 

62 

397 

15.7 

Language 

38 

254 

14.9 

35 

331 

10.6 

21 

397 

5.3 

History 

15 

141 

10.6 

45 

176 

25.6 

26 

283 

9.2 

Civics 

0 

22 

0 

Geography 

30 

254 

11.81 

34 

331 

10.3 

34 

397 

8.6 

Bus.  Forms 

0 

22 

0 

Reading 

13 

254 

5.1 

13 

331 

3.9 

7 

397 

1.8 

Orthography 

25 

254 

9.8 

34 

331 

10.3 

30 

397 

7.6 

Penmanship 

14 

254 

5.51 

24 

331 

7.2 

15 

397 

3.8 

Phys.  Training 

6 

40 

15.0 

0 

423 

0 

2 

422 

.5 

Manual  Arts 

1 

27 

3  7 

0 

103 

0 

2 

106 

l.S 

Physiology 

21 

254 

8.27 

31 

331 

9.4 

8 

397 

2.1 

Drawing 

..    1      .  . 

0 

11 

0 

0 

11 

0 

*No  Classification  of  Pupils  as  to  Subjects,  in  Reception  Grade  and  Grades  I 
and  II. 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 


43 


The  relative  difficulties  of  subjects  in  the  elementary  schools  will 
be  seen  from  Chart  No.  9  in  which  the  percentage  of  failures  by  sub- 
jects for  three  years  are  given  in  those  subjects  in  which  the  greatest 
percentages  of  failures  occur. 

■     Chart  No.  9. 


ArithmeMc 
Language 

History 
Geography 
Reading 
Physiology 

Orthography 
Penmanship 


y/////////////7^ 


y////////////.y.v////////////A 


v///////////////;^ 


V//////////////^7M 


V/////M 


y////////////A 


V///////////////A 


W/Z^ 


m\ 


916- 
917 


□1919- 
1920 


1921- 
1921 


Showing  the  percentage  of  failures  by  subjects  in  the  Elementary  Schools  of 
Lawrence  Township,  Mercer  County,  New  Jersey,  for  the  years  1916-1917,  1919- 
1920  and  1920-1921. 


High  School 
Enrohnent 


The  state  provides  that  all  pupils  who  complete  the  8th 
grade  may  avail  themselves  of  a  free  high  school  edu- 


cation. Lawrence  Township,  in  accordance  with  this 
law,  provides  high  school  facilities  by  sending  its  pupils  either  to 
Princeton  or  Trenton,  and  pays  both  their  tuition  and  transportation. 
A  comparison  between  the  total  enrolment  and  high  school  en- 
rolment of  Lawrence  Township  shows  that  while  there  has  been  a 
steady  increase  in  the  total  school  enrolment  covering  a  period  of 


44 


Survey  of  Public  School  Sijstem 


X 
X 


CO 
H 
O 

33 


!> 

o 

m 

« 
o 

E-i 
Z 

s 

O 


ij 

rr 

-< 

« 

H 

H 

o 

►-^ 

o 

>^ 

z 

H 

< 

Z 

H 

P 

Z 

O 

1^ 

O 

I-} 
o 
« 
z 

o 
o 
» 
o 

CO 

W 
o 

W 

H 
El 

z 
a 

m 

z 
o 

<! 
O 

o 


o 

>~1 

t- 

t- 

o 

e^ 

5  oi 

C35 

OJ 

t> 

1-H 

>-H 

■<-( 

T-H 

Oi 

o 

05 

o 

Oi 

■>-H 

5^ 

C5 

t^ 

to 

d 

l-H 

■<-H 

T-l 

00 

Ob 

o 

lO 

00 

s 

■<-( 

55 

^ 

Ol 

d 

M< 

03 

■^ 

>-< 

an 

K 

00 

o 

03 

CO 

*~t 

55 

Oi 

l> 

»o 

b- 

■^ 

>-i 

'o 

5^ 

a> 

iC 

o 

>-l 

Oi 

Ci 

00 

CO 

d 

>-( 

>~( 

T— 1 

o 

>-< 

■J^ 

5^ 

CO 

iM 

CO 

Oi 

CD 

I^ 

CO 

1-H 

■>-H 

1 

Oi 

o 

>~( 

(M 

CO 

o 

05 

lO 

lO 

CO 

© 

*-H 

■>~i 

&q 

00 

Oi 

r-^ 

>^ 

55 

00 

CO 

00 

o 

<3i 

CO 

CO 

(M 

o 

>-( 

»-H 

-« 

U 

^ 

f^ 

00 

rS£ 

>-H 

55 

lO 

00 

C' 

C» 

Oi 

■* 

TtH 

(M 

•5* 

■>--< 

■^ 

a: 

Co 

e^ 

>-^ 

5  5 

<© 

CO 

00 

Oi 

■* 

•^ 

(N 

■^ 

*-( 

o 

>-( 

05 

t^ 

o 

^ 

Ol 

CO 

o 

Oi 

o 

C5 

CO 

■^ 

>~l 

Ol 

O 

03 

C^l 

CD 

■"-I 

5l? 

lO 

CO 

1^ 

^-» 

C5 

CO 

00 

C-l 

s 

'-H 

>-H 

S 

00 

Oi 

GO 

o 

IC 

■»-H 

55 

CO 

^ 

CO 

Oi 

o 

00 

(M 

*-< 

>-( 

e 

6^ 

00 

l-H 

o 

(M 

"S 

■<-«i 

55 

TJH 

l-H 

t^ 

^ 

<3i 

o 

00 

(M 

■•-I 

>-H 

<te 

e^ 

CO 

2 

l-H 

■»*H 

_  >-( 

I— 1 

o 

GO 

Oi 

5  oi 

IC 

t^ 

C-l 

■"-H 

>~( 

.& 

D, 

§1 

bC 

(U      ^ 

o     ^ 

a 

&   o 

S  5 

'? 

1^ 

•g^ 

W  iJ 

Ph 

o 

cC 

c^ 

-u 

cS 

-o 

;h 

flj 

.C 

-^ 

o 

s 

o 

(H 

<*-! 

J2 

ort 

o 

o 

^ 

^, 

-kJ 

o 

a 

m 

13 

j3 

o 

b£ 

U 

^ 

t-i 

C 

41 

o 

O 

-IJ 

^H 

0) 

(U 

S 

^ 

Cl 

^ 

^4-H 

Ph 

Sh 

-ti 

o 

d 

c 

o 

CI 

C! 

0) 

OJ 

(h 

c 

H 

tH 

3 

M 

o 

-1-3 

>> 

m 

■1-3 

C! 

0) 

1— ' 

o 

-o 

o 

3 

CO 

(U 

^ 

O 

O 

«-i 

,a 

o 

o 

EC 

<^ 

J=l 

o 

.Sf 

c 

A 

£ 

.b 

(1) 

fi 

o 

o 

^ 

^ 

03 

73 

'73 
Ci 
01 

a 

s 

42 

o 

c:) 

fl> 

a; 

-o 

is 

'O 

<u 

c3 

cj 

o3 

TJ- 

C! 

aj 

(U 

> 

?^    % 

o 

se-^ 

« 

"    a; 

^ 

.2  -^ 

H 

^  H 

Lawrence  Township,  Neiv  Jersey 


45 


years,  there  has  been  a  slump  in  the  high  school  enrolment,  reaching 
its  lowest  point  during  the  war  period,  1918-1919.  Since  that  time, 
however,  there  has  been  a  rapid  growth  in  the  high  school  enrolment 
as  the  preceding  table  shows.  In  this  table  is  also  given  the  percentage 
which  high  school  enrolment  has  been  of  total  enrolment  for  three 
Mercer    County    townships    for    the    period    1916-1921.     Lawrence 


Chart  No.  10. 


Gr.  Til 


1920  1921   1920  1921   1920  1921   1920  1921   1920  1921 
'21   '22    '21   '22    '21   '22    '21   '22   '21   '22 


Or.  XII 


1920  1921 
'21   '22 


Enrolment  for  1920-21. 


Enrolment  for  1921-22. 


Comparison  of  Pupil  Enrolment  for  Schocl  Years  1920-1921  and  1921-22  in 

Grades  7  to  12. 

Township  sends  a  smaller  percentage  of  its  total  enrolment  to  high 
school  than  either  Ewing  or  Princeton.  It  should  be  borne  in  mind 
that  these  are  the  three  townships  in  Mercer  County  which  do  not 
support  their  high  schools  and  which  are  a  comparable  group. 

The  high  school  percentages  for  all  three  groups  are  far  below  the 
median  of  the  United  States,  namely,  13.6%. 

In  Table  XXIV  are  given  the  numbers  of  pupils  en- 


Enrolment — 
Grades  7  to  12 


rolled  in  Lawrence  Township  in  grades  7  to  12  for  the 
school  years  1920-1921  and  1921-1922.  In  the  loth 
and  1 2th  grades,  there  is  a  sharp  decrease  in  enrolment,  but  a  splendid 
increase  in  grade  1 1.  The  inequalities  between  grades  and  the  rapid 
falling  off  of  children  after  the  7th  grade  are  clearly  marked  in 
Chart  No.  10. 


46 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 


X! 

m 
< 


h3 
O 
O 

w 

Z/1 

PS 

o 

53 
P 
►J 

I— I 

(M 

I— I 

O 

H 


03 

o 

O 


P 

o 


Q 

fa 
o 

H 

W 
.J 

o 

K 


o 

c 
m 

5 
-»; 

s 

o 

O 


o  X 


1— I 
o 


w    <>} 

o 
H 


02 


GO    CO    >0           (M 

,_      •^o 

^} 

1             "^ 

=0       f« 

>~( 

'               1 

■5*7 

>--l 

^  oi  oo        o 

s  "S  ?i. 

»-H 

1-1               o 

Perce 
'I  Enr 
rades 

IM 

1   "^ 

1-^  I— 1  CO        lo 

1     ■~-l 

^  —I     1          CO 

QO    CD    C)           .— 1 

^1^ 

Ol 

'                   1 

8^  -S 

I 

00 

Oi  CO  -^        ^H 

■—1    C-}                  a 

6> 

■*    lO    i-H              CO 

CO  CO 

kO    -+1    05             t^ 

E~( 

lo  CO  oi 

r—- . 

1— 1     T— 1                          CO 

5 
o 

»-H 

t^  to  CO        .-H 

^ 

O 

OC    O    — 1           (M 

1-H 

cq 

00    0>   1— 1           CO 

CO    t^    1— 1             1— f 

1— 1    IC   CO           LO 

^ 

1      7 

1 

t^   CO    M<           05 

-6 

O 

1   - 

-#    (M    iM           O 

1             ^ 

05 

'               1 

«D    CO    1^           CO 

nth 

Grade 

^ 

OJ     1-H              00 

lO    00   CO           C) 

^3 

1—1          CO 
01 

"-H     LO     ■*                O 

O) 

o 

t^  O  r^        CO 

^ 

Ol    01      1             (M 
1 

-a   ^ 

tS  ^ 

I^ 

to 

o  CI  t^        CO 

^  ^  1      1 

oq 

00   00   o          o 

9th 
Grade 

f-H 

GO    O    (M           t^ 
CI    CO 

to 

'^  i^  CO        ^ 

.-H     ,-1                          (M 

'#    CO    >-•            t^ 

CQ 

^  ^  ,      1 

&H 

O   CI   CI          o 

^i 

CO    -^     r-H              Ttl 

to 

C^    >0    GO           t^ 

'-^. 

i-H     CI                          -^ 

oq 

CO     1^     Tt<                rH 

— H     ^                          CO 

&s 

CO      •*      T-H                   T-1 

lO  CO  ■— 1        CI 

to 

•O   O   lO          o 

C5 

C3    CO                   CI 

oq 

00    -^    CD           ^ 

CI    CO                   CI 

« 

v? 

o    d 

Oj      o 

o3     ti 

O      CJ 

'-    c 

P    HH 

cc 

IW           ,, 

J^ 

1 

V  7  ^  S  Q 

1       1      OJ     <u 

o  1-1   t:   o   ^^ 

CI     CI       O      t;      O 

Oi  Oi    a  ^ 

^    1— 1    1— 1    Ph 

Teaching 
Staff 


PART  IV 

TEACHERS  IN  LAWRENCE  TOWNSHIP 

There  are  twenty-two  members  of  the  teaching  staff  in 
Lawrence  Township  including  the  supervising  principal 
and  the  teacher  of  the  New  Jersey  Home  School  which, 
within  a  month,  is  to  move  to  its  new  home  and  be  outside  of  the 
jurisdiction  of  Lawrence  Township  making  the  regular  staff  a  staff  of 
twenty-one.* 

^  .  Table  XXV  gives  the  distribution  of  the  teachers  for  Law- 
rence  Township  on  the  basis  of  salary  received  and  years 
of  experience.  From  this  it  is  seen  that  the  median  salary 
for  Lawrence  Township  is  $1,500  (computed  median  $1,514),  and  the 
median  years'  experience  is  slightly  over  ten  years.  More  than  three- 
fourths  of  Lawrence  Township  teachers  have  more  than  live  years' 
teaching  experience.  The  length  of  teaching  experience  in  Lawrence 
Township  is  shown  in  Chart  No.  1 1  which  gives  the  number  of  teachers 
who  began  to  teach  in  the  township  in  each  of  the  years  from  1902  to 
the  present  time. 

In  Table  XXVI  the  total  experience  of  elementary  school 
teachers  in  Mercer  County  is  shown  for  purposes  of  comparison.  The 
median  experience  in  Lawrence  Township  is  8.5%  and  is  higher  than 
that  of  all  of  the  other  townships. 

Chart  No.  12  shows  the  relation  of  the  experience  in  Lawrence 
Township  to  the  total  experience  of  each  teacher.  From  this  it  is 
quite  evident  that  the  teachers  in  Lawrence  Township  have  had  the 
major  part  of  their  experience  within  the  township.  Thirteen  of  the 
twenty-one  teachers  have  had  their  entire  experience  in  this  township. 

„     .         Table  XXVII  gives  the  distribution  of  salaries  and  the  vears 
1  Tain-  .   . 

of  training  beyond  the  8th  grade  for  Lawrence  Twp.  ele- 
mentary school  teachers.  Seventeen  of  the  twenty-one 
teachers  are  graduates  of  a  two  year  standard  normal  school.  One 
teacher  has  more  than  this  much  preparation,  while  three  have  less. 
This  table  also  shows  that  there  has  not  been  a  definite  policy  in 
Lawrence  Township  to  adjust  the  salary  to  the  amount  of  training. 

*  Most  of  the  material  concerning  the  teaching  staff  was  secured  from  the  back 
files  of  school  registers  and  reports  to  the  county  superintendent. 


48  Survey  of  Public  School  System 

TABLE  XXV 

Distribution  of  Sal.uiies   and  Experience  for  Elementary  School 
Teachers,  Lawrence  Township,  Mercer  County,  New  Jersey 

Salary  1921-1922 


Years  of 

Per 

Experience 

1150 

1200 

1250 

1300 

1350 

1400 

1450 

1500 

1550 

1600 

Total 

Cent 

38 

1 

1 

4.8 

35 

1 

1 

4.8 

27 

1 

1 

4.8 

20 

0 

.0 

19 

1 

1 

4.8 

18 

2 

2 

9.6 

17 

1 

1 

4.8 

16 

0 

.0 

15 

0 

.0 

14 

0 

.0 

13 

1 

1 

4.8 

12 

0 

.0 

11 

1 

1 

4.8 

10 

1 

1 

2 

9.6 

9 

1 

1 

4.8 

8 

1 

1 

4  8 

7 

1 

1 

2 

9.6 

6 

1 

1 

4.8 

5 

1 

1 

2 

9.6 

4 

1 

1 

4.8 

3 

1 

1 

4.8 

2 

1 

1 

4.8 

1 

0 

.0 

0 

0 

.0 

Total 

1 

1 

1 

1 

2 

1 

1 

9 

1 

3 

21 

Per  Cent 

4.8 

4.8 

4.8 

4.8 

9.6 

4.8 

4.8 

45.2 

4.8 

U.4 

100 

Median  Salary— $1514. 
Median  Years  Experience — 10. 2. 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 
Chaet  No.  U 


49 


Teachers            A 

1 

B 

1 

C 

1 

D 

1 

E 

1 

F 

1 

G 

;] 

H 

1 

I 

1 

J 

1 

K 

1 

L 

1 

M 

1 

N 

1 

0 

1 

P 

1 

Q 

1 

R 
S 
T 

U 
Years  of  Experience 
In  Lawrence 
Township 

1 

I 

OS                        10 

16                    20 

Showing  VariabiHty  of  Length  of  Service  of  Elementary  School  Teachers  in 

Lawrence  Township  1921- 1922. 


TABLE  XXVI 

Comparison  of  Total  Experience  of  Elementary  School  Teachers,  Mercer 

County,  New  Jersey  1920  1921 


Township 

Total  Experience 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Mt'diayi 

No.  Teachers 

Lawrence 

1  year 

34  years 

8 . 5  years 

21 

East  Windsor 

1 

31 

6.7 

15 

Hamilton 

1 

27.5 

5.8 

81 

Hopewell 

1 

36 

4.6 

31 

Princeton 

2 

32 

4.5 

6 

West  Windsor 

1 

8 

'      3.5 

8 

Ewing 

1 

5 

3.5 

16 

Washington 

2 

18 

2.5 

5 

50 


Teachoi  s 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 
Chart  No.  12. 


////// 


^////^.TT^ 


m 


H? 


////////. 


y^T^^^^^T^^ 


^^^^^^^^^^^^ 


Years 


16 


24 


32  40 

Comparison  of  Total  Years  of  Experience  with   Experience  in  Lawrence 
Township  1921-1922. 

Total  Experience — Black  Areas. 

Experience  in  LawTence  Township — Cross  Hatching. 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 


51 


> 
X 
X 

w 
w 


p; 
a 

o 
< 

H 

h3 
o 
o 
n 
o 
CQ 

i 

O 
00 

O 
< 

O 

Q 
O 

w 

C5 


< 

o 
m 

a 

OS 

P5 
«! 

OQ 

P^ 
O 

iz; 
o 

P 

n 
i-i 

« 

.  El 
OS 


4.8 

80.8 

4.8 

4.8 
4.8 

o 

rH 

(M                                           i-H 

0:1 

T-H 

■"-I 

00 

I— 1            O            >— 1                            i— 1 

Oi 

00 

CO 

■•-1 

r-H 

>-l 

00 

1—1 

>~l 

00 

(M 

"^J 

05 

1 

T-H 

>~< 

20 

'-1 

T— 1 

■^ 

00 

1— ( 

■>-l 

00 

<— t 

>-( 

=0 

•a 

3 

GO    t^    O   >0    •*    CO    (M    i-H 
OOt^OlO'^COIM'-HO 

1 

1 

a. 

o 


00 


00"^ 

-s  > 
si 

_     bC 

s.s 

fi     O 
■3      CQ 


10 


Pi 
O 


i3 

a 


t3 
o 

a 


t3 

a 

O 


-4J 

03 


s  ^ 

o   o 


52 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 


The  correlation  of  these  two  elements, — .04,  shows  that  it  is  a  matter 
of  individual  adjustment. 

A  majority  of  the  teachers  holding  normal  school  diplomas  re- 
ceived them  from  the  Trenton  State  Normal  School.  This  fact,  com- 
bined with  the  predominance  of  experience  within  Lawrence  Township 
would  show  that  the  schools  are  staffed  very  largely  by  local  people. 
The  teachers  of  Lawrence  Township  are  better  trained  than  the  ma- 
jority of  teachers  in  the  rural  districts  of  New  Jersey  and  much  better 
trained  than  the  teachers  of  similar  districts  in  many  other  states. 
Lawrence  Township  ranks  fourth  among  the  districts  in  Mercer 
County  in  the  percentage  of  elementary  school  teachers  who  are  nor- 
mal school  graduates.  The  following  resolution  passed  May  30th, 
1921  shows  that  there  is  to  be  financial  recognition  for  additional 
preparation  secured  during  service.  "Resolved  that  beginning  with 
the  year  1921-22,  no  teacher  shall  receive  an  increase  in  pay  for  two 
consecutive  years  without  having  taken  courses  approved  by  the 
supervising  principal  at  one  of  the  state  summer  schools  within  two 
years  preceding  the  proposed  increase." 

The  relative  preparation  of  the  elementary  school  teachers  in  the 
other  districts  of  jVIercer  County  is  shown  in  Table  XXVIIL  From 
this,  it  is  seen  that  Lawrence  Township's  teachers  compare  favorably 
with  those  of  other  districts  in  the  county. 

TABLE  XXVIII 

Comparison  of  Preparation  op  Elementary  School  Teachers  in 
Mercer  County  Townships  1921-22 


Preparation 

Township 

Normal 

No  Record 

Total 

Per  Cent 

Per  Cent 

Graduate 

oj  Prep- 

Teachers 

Normal 

No  Prep- 

aration 

Graduates 

aration 

Ewing 

15 

1 

16 

94 

6 

West  Windsor 

7 

1 

8 

88 

12 

Hamilton 

63 

18 

81 

78 

22 

Lawrence 

16 

5 

21 

76 

24 

Hopewell 

23 

8 

31 

74 

26 

East  Windsor 

11 

4 

15 

73 

27 

Princeton 

4 

2 

6 

67 

33 

Washington 

2 

3 

5 

40 

60 

Tolals 

141 

42 

138 

78 

22 

Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 


53 


Sala 
ries 


The  teachers  of  Lawrence  Township  are  paid  according  to  a 
regular  salary  schedule  which  went  into  effect  in  1920  and 
which  provides  for  a  minimum  salary  of  $1,100.  and  a  maxi- 
mum of  $1,800.  per  year.  A  comparison  of  the  salaries  paid  to  the 
teachers  of  Lawrence  Township  compared  with  the  median  salary  of 
seven  townships  in  ]VIercer  County,  given  in  Chart  No.  13,  shows  that 
Lawrence  Township  has  consistently,  since  191 5,  paid  salaries  higher 
than  the  average  for  the  county.  The  actual  distribution  of  salaries 
paid  the  teachers  of  Lawrence  Township  is  shown  in  Table  XXVTI  and 
graphically  presented  in  Chart  No.  14.  The  fact  that  so  many  of  the 
teachers  receive  $1,500.  is  due  to  the  length  of  experience  of  these 
teachers  in  Lawrence  Township  which  brought  a  number  of  them  to 
the  maximum  salary  until  the  new  schedule  was  adopted  in  1920.  A 
comparison  of  Lawrence  Township  with  the  districts  of  East  Windsor, 
Princeton,  Hopewell,  Hamilton,  Washington,  Ewing  and  West  Wind- 
sor in  jMercer  County  shows  that  Lawrence  Township  pays  a  higher 
median  salary  than  any  of  these  other  districts  by  $100.,  even  though 
three  of  the  other  townships  are  paying  as  high  or  higher  maximum 
salaries.     These  comparisons  are  given  in  Table  XXIX. 

Chart  No.  13. 
Comparison  of  Teachers'  Salaries  in  Elementary  Schools  in  Lawrence  Town- 
ship with  those  of  other  Townships  in  Mercer  County. 


1600 
1400 

,^ 

1200 

/         1 
/         1 

/        / 
/        / 

1000 

/       / 

/ 

/ 

/ 

800 

( 

^X^ 
^/> 

,^ 

600 

J^^ 

?»^ 

^^ 



».*  — 

"■  - 

600 

19 

10 

19  j 

Is              191 

6 

19 

17               19 

Lb                ic 

19             19 

SO                 1= 

21 

V 

iiZ 

' —       Median  salary  of  seven  townships  in  Mercer  County 

__^____      Median  salary  of  Lawrence  Township 


54 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 


It  is  not  possible  to  make  any  adequate  statement  concerning  the 
adequacy  of  the  salaries  in  terms  of  cost  of  living  or  other  expenses, 
because  not  all  of  the  teachers  returned  the  data  on  these  items.  In 
comparison  with  other  places,  the  salaries  paid  are  adequate  to  secure 
a  maximum  of  efficient  service  and  adequately  trained  progressive 
teachers. 

TABLE  XXIX 

Comparative  Salary  Schedules  in  Mercer  CorNTY  Townships  1920-21 


Elementary  Teachers 

Township 

Minimum 

Maximum 

Median 

La-RTence 

1100 

1500 

1425 

East  Windsor 

1100 

17.50 

1325 

Princeton 

1100 

1400 

1275 

Hopewell 

lOCO 

1600 

1255 

Hamilton 

1100 

160C- 

1230 

Washington 

1100 

1500 

11S7 

Ewing 

1100 

1375 

1178 

West  Windsor 

1100 

1300 

1130 

Chart  Xo.  14 


Salary 
S16c6 
1.550 
1500 
1450 
1400 
1350 
1300 
1250 
1200 
11.50 

Teachers 


Distribution  of  Salaries  Paid  Elementary  School  Teachers  of  Lawrence  Township 

1921-22 


PART  V 

THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  PUPIL  PERFORMANCE 

In  order  to  evaluate  more  fully  the  efficiency  of  the  existing 
school  system  in  Lawrence  Township,  a  number  of  standard- 
ized tests  were  given  to  the  pupils  in  the  various  grades.  In  this 
way,  it  is  possible  to  compare  the  achievement  of  the  pupils  in  one 
school  with  those  in  another  school  in  the  township  and  also  to  com- 
pare the  work  done  by  the  children  in  Lawrence  Township  with  sim- 
ilar achievements  of  pupils  in  almost  every  section  of  the  United 
States.  It  was  not  possible  to  give  tests  in  every  subject,  but  the 
selection  included  a  wide  enough  range  to  furnish  a  foundation  for  the 
study  of  this  phase  of  the  Lawrence  Township  schools. 
The  following  tests  were  used: — 

Arithmetic The  Woody  Series  A  Tests* 

Addition..  .  .In  Grades  3  and  4 
Subtraction."        "        3  to  8  inclusive 
Division.  ..."        "        5  to  8  inclusive 

Writing Scored   by   the  Thorndike  Handwriting 

Scale  *     Grades  3  to  8  inclusive 

Spelling Words    selected    from    the    Buckingham 

Extension  to  the  Ayres  Spelling  Scale* 
Grades  3  to  8  inclusive 

English  Composition Scored  by  the  Nassau  County  Supple- 
ment to  the  Hillegas  Scale*  Grades 
4  to  8  inclusive 

Reading. ..  ^ Thorndike-McCall    (Scale   A)*     Grades 

3  to  8  inclusive 
Haggerty  Reading  Sigma  i**     Grades  2 
and  3 

National  Intelligence  Test** — Grades  3  to  8  inclusive,  and 

Pressey  Primer  Scale***'  .  .■ — Reception  Grade,  ist  and  2nd  Grades 
Each  one  of  these  tests  was  given  according  to  the  standardized 

direction?  for  that  particular  test  and  the  results  are  summarized 

*  Published  by  the  Bureau  of'Publications,  Teachers  College,  Columbia  Uni- 
versity, N.  Y.  C. 
**  Published  by  the  World  Book  Co.,  Yonkers,  N.  Y. 
***  Pubhshed  by  the  Department  of  Psychology,  University  of  Indiana,  Bloom- 
ington,  Ind. 


56 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 


under  each  subject.  Detailed  tables  giving  the  actual  distributions 
for  each  subject  in  the  township  and  in  the  separate  schools  of  the 
township  were  submitted  when  the  report  was  made.  These  actual 
distributions  should  be  particularly  helpful  for  diagnosing  the  situa- 
tion in  any  grade,  in  any  school,  and  for  building  a  constructive  pro- 
gram of  supervision  with  more  accurate  grading  and  classification. 

Arithmetic 
It  will  be  seen  from  Table  XXX  that  each  grade  from  the  3rd  to 
the  8th  was  given  two  tests  in  arithmetic.     In  every  case,  with  the 
exception  of  the  4th  grade  in  addition  and  the  5th  grade  in  subtrac- 

TABLE  XXX 

Median   Scores   on   Woody   Arithmetic   Test-Series   A    Compared    with 

Woody's  Standard  Medians. 

Lawrence  Township,  Mercer  County,  New  Jersey 


Grades 

Schools 

III 

IV 

V 

VI 

VII 

VIII 

Addition: 

Lawrence  Township 

13.2 

18.5 

Woody  Standard 

14.5 

18.3 

Difference 

-1.3 

+0.2 

Subtraction: 

Lawrence  Township 

11.1 

15.5 

22.1 

23.5 

27  A 

31.1 

Woody  Standard 

11.2 

15.7 

20.4 

25.0 

28.5 

31.7 

Difference 

-0.1 

-0.2 

+  1.7 

-1.5 

-0.9 

-0.6 

Division  : 

Lawrence  Township 

13.4 

21.0 

26.3 

28.7 

Woody  Standard 

16.5 

23.8 

27.4 

30.1 

Difference 

-3.1 

-2.8 

-1.1 

-1.4 

tion,  the  median  scores  for  Lawrence  Township  are  below  the  median 
scores  adopted  as  the  standard  by  the  author  of  these  tests.  It  is 
noticeable  that  the  differences  between  Lawrence  Township's  median 
and  the  standard  in  the  3rd  and  4th  in  both  addition  and  subtraction 
are  very  small.  This  is  possibly  accounted  for  by  the  additional  year 
spent  by  the  majority  of  the  children,  due  to  the  reception  grade,  in 
reaching  the  3rd  and  4th  grade.  This  should  give  the  children  in  these 
early  grades  a  distinct  advantage  over  the  children  in  other  commun. 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 


57 


ities.  The  median  performances  of  the  5th  grade  in  subtraction  and 
division  and  of  the  6th  grade  in  division  show  the  greatest  differences 
between  the  medians  for  Lawrence  Township  and  the  estabHshed 
standards  for  these  tests,  the  5th  grade  falling  behind  the  standard  by 
over  three  problems. 

The  comparisons  between  the  results  secured  in  Lawrence  Town- 
ship and  other  communities  where  the  Series  A  tests  had  been  used 
are  shown  in  Table  XXXL  It  will  be  seen  from  this  table  that  other 
schools  are  not  only  able  to  attain  the  Woody  standard  but  in  many 
cases  exceed  that  accomplishment.  As  in  Table  XXX,  the  upper 
grades  in  Lawrence  Township  performed  less  satisfactorily  than  the 
other  groups,  with  the  exception  of  the  distinctly  rural  schools  in  the 
Wisconsin  study.  The  Lawrence  Township  schools  are  even  below 
the  Wisconsin  rural  schools  in  four  cases. 


TABLE  XXXI 

Median  Scores  on  Woody  Arithmetic  Test-Series  A  Compared  by  Grade 

WITH  Medians  of  Other  Schools 

Lawrence  Township,  Mercer  County,  New  Jersey 

Grades 


Schools 

III 

IV 

V 

VI 

VII 

VIII 

Addition  : 

Lawrence  TouTiship 

13.2 

18.5 

Woody  Standard 

14.5 

18.3 

Wisconsin  Rural* 

14.5 

17.7 

Wisconsin  Cities* 

15.5 

20.2 

Subtraction  : 

Lawrence  Township 

11.1 

15.5 

22. 1 

23,5 

27  A 

31.1 

Woody  Standard 

11.2 

15.7 

20.4 

25.0 

28.5 

31.7 

Wisconsin  Rural* 

12.0 

15.4 

18.8 

21.3 

23.4 

26.8 

Wisconsin  Cities* 

13.3 

18.1 

20.8 

25.6 

28.4 

30.3 

Division  : 

Lawrence  Township 

13.4 

21.0 

26.3 

28.7 

Woody  Standard 

16.5 

23.8 

27.4 

30.1 

Wisconsin  Rural* 

13.9 

19.5 

21.8 

24.9 

Wisconsin  Cities  * 

19.6 

25.1 

28.4 

30.0 

*Educational  Progress  in  Wisconsin,  by  Cary,  Flemming  and  others,  pg.  76. 
Publi.-^hed  by  State  Department,  Madison,  Wisconsin. 


58  Survey  of  Public  School  System 

jr     •  I-,-      •  The  outstanding  feature  of  a  detailed  distrlbu- 

y  uriubtLity  tn  . 

^   .  ,        .    .  tion  of  the   scores   in   the   arithmetic  tests   in 
ATitriTnstic  tn 

J                „  Lawrence  Township  is  the  very  great  range  of 

Lawrence  lozunsnip  .                  .         ^                    ^  .                '^ 

performance   for   any  one  test  m   any   grade. 

For  example,  in  one  4th  grade,  there  are  two  children  who  could  not 
solve  any  of  the  problems  in  subtraction.  The  remainder  of  the  class 
are  distributed  in  their  ability  to  solve  problems  from  this  point  to 
two  children  who  solved  twenty-one  and  one  child  who  solved  twenty- 
three  of  the  problems.  There  were  33  children,  or  44%  of  the  6th 
grade  who  could  not  solve  as  many  problems  in  subtraction  as  the  one 
child  in  the  4th  grade  who  solved  twenty-three.  This  very  great  over- 
lapping occurs  in  all  of  the  grades  and  the  spread  within  each  of  the 
grades  shows  a  very  distinct  need  for  a  more  accurate  grading  of  pupils. 

^  .  J.    The  number  of  problems  solved  bv  2q%  of  each  class 

Lomparison  of  ,  ,  ^      f^        ,      ,  ,        '     , 

^1  and  by  75%  of  each  class  shows  the  range  of  per- 

formance of  the  middle  50%  of  the  class.  With  this 
measure,  comparisons  of  like  grades  in  the  different  schools  of  Law- 
rence Township  were  made.  In  subtraction,  one  3rd  grade  class  has 
a  class  median  of  5.5  problems,  while  another  3rd  grade  class  has  a 
median  of  12  problems.  The  range  of  achievement  between  the  25 
percentile  and  75  percentile  spreads  in  the  one  case  from  2.3  to  ii.i 
and  in  the  other  case  is  confined  between  10.3  and  13.5.  This  means 
that  in  the  first  of  these  two  3rd  grades,  25%  of  the  class  could  not 
solve  more  than  2.3  problems  and  that  only  75%  of  the  class  could 
solve  more  than  ii.i,  while  the  standard  median  for  that  grade,  which 
should  be  met  by  50%  of  the  children,  is  1 1.2.  A  comparison  in 
the  median  number  of  subtraction  problems  solved  by  two  4th  grade 
classes  within  the  same  building  shows  the  median  accomplishment 
for  one  class  to  be  6  problems  and  for  the  other  16  problems.'  Many 
such  irregularities  within  like  grades  developed  out  of  the  arithmetic 
tests.  This  is  further  evidence  of  a  lack  of  proper  supervision  and  a 
lack  of  attention  to  the  whole  problem  of  adequate  classification. 

Writing 

D     !'f  <    f  H     /J      '^^^   handwriting  test  consisted   of  copying  two 

familiar  lines  for  a  period  of  three  minutes.     The 
WTtttnz  . 

children    were    given    the    following    directions: 

"We  want  to  know  how  well  you  can  write.     When  I  tell  you  to 

begin,  you  are  to  copy  the  two  sentences  over  and  over  again,  just  as 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 


59 


many  times  as  you  can,  before  I  tell  you  to  stop.  Remember,  how- 
ever, to  write  each  time  just  as  well  as  you  can."  These  samples  of 
handwriting  were  then  scored  on  the  Thorndike  Handwriting  Scale 
for  quality  by  three  competent  judges  and  the  median  score  of  these 
three  judgments  taken  as  the  quality  score  for  each  paper. 

Table  XXXIl  gives  the  median  scores  by  schools  and  grades  for 
Lawrence  Township.  It  is  evident  that  in  every  grade,  Lawrence 
Township  is  distinctly  below  the  standard  achievement  for  that  grade. 
There  are  only  two  instances  where  a  grade  in  any  school  exceeds  the 
standard  for  that  grade.  These  two  grades  are  the  4th  grade  in 
Clarksville,  with  only  5  pupils,  and  the  5th  grade  in  Rosedale,  with 
only  7. 

A  more  detailed  distribution  of  these  scores  makes  evident  the 
lack  of  grading  in  these  classes,  since  several  of  them  spread  over  six 
quality  steps  in  the  scale  and  one  6th  grade  extends  over  nine  steps 
from  one  child  whose  writing  was  adjudged  "quality  six"  to  children 
whose  writing  was  scored  at  "quality  fourteen." 

TABLE  XXXII 

Comparison  of  the  Schools  in  Lawrence  Township  as  to  Quality  of 
Writing  as  Measured  by  the  Thorndike  Handwriting  Scale 

Grades 


III 

IV 

V 

TV 

VII 

VIII 

Schools 

i 

i 

4 

£ 
0 
u 

^ 

^' 

^ 
0 

^ 

0 

<6 

s 

Lawrence  Township 

48 

8.3 

88 

8.8 

93 

9.1 

76 

9.8 

54 

10.2 

40 

10.5 

Standard 

10.1 

10.7 

11.3 

11.9 

12.7 

Slackwood 

18 

7. 

40 

8.4 

42 

8.7 

37 

9.5 

40 

10.6 

22 

10.9 

Lawrenceville 

10 

7.9 

17 

8.3 

21 

9. 

24 

9.3 

14 

10.1 

18 

10. 

Eldridge  Park 

12 

9.2 

26 

8.2 

23 

8.7 

13 

9.3 

Rosedale 

6 

9.5 

7 

11.1 

2 

11. 

Clarksville 

2 

9.. 5 

.5 

10.5 

Table  XXXIII  gives  a  comparison  of  the  quality  of  handwriting 
in  Lawrence  Township  with  five  other  places,  four  of  them  in  New 
Jersey  and    the    fifth,  Amsterdam,  N.  Y.     Here    again,   Lawrence 


60 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 


Township  is  shown  to  be  distinctly  below  the  median  accomplishment 
of  these  other  places  in  all  grades,  with  the  exception  of  a  slight  ad- 
vantage in  the  8th  grade  over  the  achievement  of  the  pupils  in  Ams- 
terdam. 


TABLE  XXXIII 

Comparison  of  Lawrence  Township  Schools  with  other  School  Systems 

AS  TO  Quality  of  Writing 

Grades 


Schools  * 

Ill 

IV 

V 

VI 

VII 

VIII 

LawTence ,  Township 

8.3 

8.8 

9.1 

9.8 

10.1 

10.5 

Standard  Score 

10.1 

10.7 

11.3 

11.9 

12.7 

Paterson,  N.  J. 

9.12 

10.7 

11.1 

10.4 

10.9 

Chatham,  N.  J. 

9.3 

10.3 

11.7 

12.8 

13.3 

Morris  Township,  N.  J, 

11.2 

12.5 

11.1 

12. 

12.8 

Newark,  N.  J. 

9.9 

11.5 

11.9 

12.2 

13.2 

Amsterdam,  N.  Y. 

9.4 

9.9 

10.7 

10.7 

10.4 

Speed  of  Hand- 
writing 


Table  XXXIV  shows  the  median  speed  of  hand- 
writing for  the  schools  and  grades  of  Lawrence 
Township.  Here  it  is  again  seen  that  the  children 
of  Lawrence  Township  are  not  only  below  the  standard  performance 
in  the  quality  of  writing,  but  also  in  rate.  This  is  particularly  true 
of  the  6th,  yth  and  8th  grades.  The  children  in  the  Rosedale  School 
are  consistently  above  the  median  performance  for  the  township  and 
also  are  above  the  standard  for  their  grades. 

Table  XXXV  shows  the  comparison  of  rate  of  writing  of  the 
pupils  in  Lawrence  Township  with  the  rates  attained  in  other  school 
systems.  This  shows  that  Lawrence  Township  does  better  in  the 
rate  of  writing  than  it  does  in  quality,  even  though  in  most  cases  it  is 
still  below  the  accomplishment  in  other  places.  The  most  significant 
comparison  in  this  table  is  with  the  medians  for  56  other  cities  which 
are  slightly  higher  than  those  for  Lawrence  Township,  with  the  excep- 
tion of  the  5th  grade. 

*Comparative  data  taken  from  unpublished  survey  of  Amsterdam,  N.  Y.  made 
by  Department  of  Educational  Administration,  Teachers  College,  Columbia 
University. 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey  61 

TABLE  XXXIV 
Comparison  of  the  Schools  in  Lawrence  Township  as  to  Rate  of  Writing 

Grades 


III 

IV 

V 

VI 

VII 

VIII 

Schools 

SO 

* 

CO 

9- 

J- 

1 

o 

>>> 

o 

so 

g. 

1 

Lawrence  Twp. 

Standard  Score 

Slackwood 

Lawrenceville 

Eldridge  Park 

Rosedale 

Clarksville 

48 

18 

10 

12 

6 

2 

40.3 

41. 
39.3 

28.5 

60 

40 

88 

40 
17 

26 

5 

45.2 

56 

43.3 

41.6 

55.4 

44.8 

93 

42 
21 
23 

7 

62.8 

65. 

62.3 

45.2 

68.5 

90.8 

76 

37 

24 

13 

2 

57 
72 

54.2 
56 

71.8 
110 

54 

40 
14 

63.8 
80 

61.8 
66.8 

40 

22 
18 

66 
90 
68.5 
64.3 

*Score  is  expressed  in  the  number  of  letters  per  minute. 


TABLE  XXXV 


Comparison  of  Lawrence  Township  Schools  with  other  School  Systems 

AS  TO  Rate  of  Writing 


Grades 


Schools** 

III 

IV 

V 

VI 

VII 

VIII 

Lawrence  Township 

40.3* 

45.2 

62.8 

57. 

63.8 

66 

Standard  Score 

56. 

65. 

72 

80. 

90 

Paterson,  N.J. 

32. 

38.5 

44.5 

52. 

52.5 

Amsterdam,  N.  Y. 

26.44 

32.9 

46.8 

51.4 

61.5 

78.5 

St.  Paul,  Minn. 

45. 

53. 

64. 

70. 

78. 

Cleveland,  0. 

62. 

69. 

73. 

78. 

56  Cities 

51.2 

59.1 

62.8 

67.9 

73. 

*Score  Ls  expressed  in  terms  of  the  number  of  letters  per  minute. 
**Comparative  data  from  unpublished  survey  of  Amsterdam,  N.  Y.  made  by 
the  Department  of  Educational    Administration,  Teachers  College,  Columbia 
University. 


62  Survey  of  Public  School  System 

A  detailed  distribution  of  the  rate  of  handwriting  for  the  pupils 
of  Lawrence  Township  shows  again  the  very  great  overlapping  be- 
tween grades,  the  wide  distribution  of  abilities  within  any  one  grade 
and  the  slower  progress  made  by  the  pupils  in  the  7th  and  8th  grades. 
An  example  of  the  wide  range  within  any  one  grade  occurs  in  a  sixth 
grade  where  one  child  writes  less  than  44  letters  per  minute  and 
another  one  in  the  same  grade  writes  between  loi  and  105  in  the  same 
time. 

A  tabulation  of  the  handwriting  scores  for  quality  and  speed, 
when  combined  by  schools  and  not  by  grades,  gives  a  median  score 
for  all  of  the  children  in  Slackwood  of  9.6,  Lawrenceville  9.5,  Eldridge 
Park  9.1,  Rosedale  10.5  and  Clarksville  9.9.  When  the  median  is 
found  for  speed,  the  scores  are  as  follows: 

Slackwood 54 

Lawrenceville 63 

Eldridge  Park 55 

Rosedale 78 

Clarksville 43 

In  comparing  Clarksville  and  Rosedale  with  the  other  schools,  it 
must  be  borne  in  mind  that  Rosedale  does  not  extend  beyond  the  6th 
grade  and  has  12  pupils  in  that  grade,  while  Clarksville  extends  only 
through  the  4th  grade. 

r,  ,    .  More  attention  should  be  given  to  the  handwrit- 

Recommendations     .  ^  .......  .  a^^     ^• 

,      „,  .  .  ing  of  pupils  in  all  writing  exercises.     Attention 

]or  Wriiinp  o        r    r    ^  o 

should  be  paid  to  correct  letter  formation,  correct 

position  and  the  securing  of  increased  speed  without  sacrificing  qual- 
ity and  legibility.  The  lowness  of  the  scores  in  the  upper  grades 
shows  either  a  lack  of  emphasis  on  handwriting  or  the  development 
of  an  attitude  of  carelessness  toward  handwriting. 


•  s 

letters 

per 

minute 

.  T 

cc 

<( 

ii 

ii 

a 

a 

•5 

•5 

11 

(( 

(( 

u 

(( 

(< 

Lawrence  Township,  Neio  Jersey 
Spelling 


63 


Selection 


Twenty  words  were  chosen  from  Buckingham's  Extension 
f  tt;-     1      to  the  Ayres  Spelling  Scale,  one  from  each  of  the  columns 
from  "G"  to  "Z".     The  words*  used  and  their  difficulty 
for  each  grade  are  given  below: 


Mid-year  Percentage 

Column  in 

Grade  in 

Standara 

f 

No. 

Words 

Ayres 
Scale 

Bauer  and 
Jones  Lists 

III 

IV 

V 

VI 

VII 

1 

come 

G 

2-2 

2 

was 

H 

2-2 

92 

3 

foot 

I 

2-2 

88 

4 

happy 

J 

2-2 

84 

5 

could 

K 

2-2 

79 

92 

6 

once 

L 

2-2 

73 

88 

7 

pretty 

M 

2-2 

66 

84 

92 

8 

always 

N 

2-2 

58 

79 

88 

9 

uncle 

0 

3-2 

50 

73 

84 

92 

10 

beautiful 

P 

4-3 

42 

66 

79 

88 

11 

surprise 

Q 

5-4 

34 

58 

73 

84 

92 

12 

vessel 

R 

5-5 

50 

66 

79 

88 

13 

century 

S 

7-7 

42 

58 

73 

84 

14 

invitation 

T 

7-7 

34 

50 

66 

79 

15 

necessary 

U 

6-6 

42 

58 

73 

16 

experience 

V 

7-7 

34 

50 

66 

17 

athletic 

W 

6-5 

42 

58 

18 

convenient 

X 

7-7 

34 

50 

19 

decision 

Y 

0-8 

42 

20 

recommend 

Z 

0-8 

34 

*  Taken  from  Virginia  Public  School  Survey,  Vol.  2,  Page  No.  93 — Directed  by 
A.  J.  Inglis. 


64 


Surveij  of  Public  School  System 


^  Table  XXXVI  gives  a  comparison  of  the  schools  of  Lawrence 
Township  on  the  basis  of  percentage  of  the  Hst  spelled  correctly  and 
the  average  number  of  words  spelled  correctly  by  each  grade  of  the 
several  schools.  There  is  less  variability  shown  in  spelling  than  in 
any  of  the  other  tests  given,  with  the  exception  of  the  3rd  grade  in 
Rosedale  and  the  4th  grade  in  Clarksville,  in  both  of  which  cases  the 
percentage  spelled  correctly  and  the  average  number  of  words  spelled 
correctly  are  higher  than  for  the  other  classes  of  those  grades. 


TABLE  XXXVI 

Comparison  of  Schools  of  Lawrence  Township  in  Spelling  on  the  Basis 

OF  THE  Percentage  and  Average  Number  of  Words 

Spelled  Correctly  in  the  Entire  List  of  Words 

Grades 


% 

/// 

IV 

V 

VI 

VII 

VIII 

Schools 

Av. 

% 
44 

Av. 

% 

Av. 

% 

Av. 

<7, 

/€ 

Av. 

% 

Av. 

Lawrence  Township 

27 

5.4 

8.7 

55 

11.1 

66 

13.1 

76 

15.2 

84 

16.8 

Slackwood 

27 

5.3 

43 

8.6 

53 

10.6 

63 

12.6 

77 

15.3 

89 

17.9 

Lawrenceville 

25 

4.9 

43 

8.5 

53 

10.5 

66 

13.1 

76 

15.1 

77 

15.4 

Eldridge  Park 

21 

4.3 

43 

8.5 

61 

12.2 

73 

14.5 

Rosedale 

38 

7.5 

59 

11.9 

75 

15. 

Clarksville 

25 

5. 

55 

11. 

Comparison  with     Table  XXXVII  gives  the  spelling  scores  for  each 
Standards  grade  of  the  Lawrence  Township  schools  compared 

in  Spelling  with  the  standard  scores  given  for  the  same  words 

used  in  84  other  cities.  Even  though  Table  XXXVI  shows  smaller 
variation  between  classes,  Table  XXXVII  shows  that  the  classes 
are  consistently  below  the  standard  achievements  for  the  several 
grades.  In  this  table,  the  lists  were  so  used  that  each  grade  was 
scored  upon  ten  words  for  which  that  grade  should  average  66.6%. 
The  3rd  grade  in  Lawrence  Township  falls  22.2%  below  this  stan- 
dard and  the  7th  grade  is  more  than  10%  below  the  standard  achieve- 
ment. 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 
TABLE  XXXVII 


65 


Spelling  Scores  for  the  Schools  of  Lawrence  Township,  Compared  with 

THE  Standard  Score  on  the  Basis  of  the  Ten  Words  op  Equal 

Difficulty  for  the  Various  Grades 

(Scores  expressed  as  percentages  of  the  ten  words  spelled  correctly) 

Grades 


III 

IV 

V 

17 

17/ 

Schools 

2-11  I  ncl.* 

5-lIf  Incl. 

7-16  Incl. 

9-18  Incl. 

11- Wind. 

Lawrence  Township 

44.4 

4:1.  b 

48. 

51.2 

56. 

Standard  Score 

66.6 

66.6 

66.6 

66.6 

66.6 

Slackwood 

43.5 

45. 

45. 

45.7 

55.8 

Lawrenceville 

41. 

48.2 

45.2 

47.9 

55.7 

Eldridge  Park 

35. 

46.5 

55.2 

61.5 

Rosedale 

61.7 

51.4 

75. 

Clarksville 

26.7 

66. 

Standard  score  based  on  results  obtained  from  eighty-four  cities. 
*This  reference  is  to  the  ten  words  spelled  as  numbered  on  page  63. 


Comparison  with 
Virginia  Results 
in  Spelling 


Table  XXXVIII  gives  a  comparison  by  grades 
with  the  achievements  in  spelling  of  the  various 
types  of  schools  in  Virginia  where  it  will  be  seen 
that  the  only  place  where  Lawrence  Township  ex- 
ceeds the  accomplishment  in  Virginia  is  in  the  yth  grade,  when  com- 
pared with  the  Virginia  one-room  rural  schools. 

TABLE   XXXVIII 

Comparison  of  the  Spelling  Scores  of  the  Lawrence  Township  Schools 
WITH  Various  Types  of  Schools  in  Virginia*  on  the  Basis  of  the 

Standard  Score 
Grades 


Schools 

III 

IV 

V 

VI 

VII 

Standard  score 

66.6 

66.6 

66.6 

66.6 

66.6 

Lawrence  Township 

44.4 

47.5 

48. 

51.2 

56. 

Va.  Rural  oae  room  schools 

61.9 

54.1 

56.8 

54.6 

.52.6 

Va.  Rural,  four  rooms  or  over 

71.8 

68.1 

61.5 

62.6 

58.7 

Va.  City  schools  first  half  yr. 

57.8 

67.0 

63.5 

57.3 

58.6 

Va.  City  schools  second  half 

69.6 

63.8 

68.3 

69.5 

63.1 

*Virginia  Public  Schools,  Vol.  I.,  page  No.  123,  Directed  by  A.  J.  Inglis. 


66  Survey  of  Public  School  System 

„  J     .  The  children  of  Lawrence  Township  are  so  dis- 

Kecommendations       •       ,     ,    ,  i      i  •  ,,■        ,  , 

r      c^  /;■  tinctly  below  standard  in  spelling  that  additional 

emphasis  should  be  placed  upon  this  work.  Care 
should  be  used  in  securing  accurate  imagery,  proper  syllabication  when 
the  word  is  first  presented  and  focalization  of  attention  on  parts  of 
words  likely  to  be  misspelled.  Better  results  will  be  obtained  if 
words  are  more  carefully  selected  from  the  vocabularies  of  the  chil- 
dren, fewer  new  words  presented  and  more  constant  drill  and  review 
used  in  this  subject. 

English  Composition 

„,     „   ,.         All  of  the  children  in  Lawrence  Township,  from  the  4th 
a  7    f  J  to  the  8th   grade  inclusive,   were  asked   to  write  for 

twenty  minutes  upon  the  topic — "What  I  Should  Like 
To  Do  Next  Saturday."  These  compositions  were  then  graded  by 
three  judges  on  the  Nassau  County  Supplement  to  the  Hillegas  Com- 
position Scale  and  the  median  of  these  three  judgments  used  as  the 
score  for  the  composition.  Distribution  of  these  scores  is  shown  in 
Table  XXXIX  where  it  will  again  be  noticed  that  improvement  is 
made  from  the  4th  to  the  5th  and  from  the  5th  to  the  6th  grades  after 
which  the  rate  of  improvement  is  materially  lessened  for  the  7th  and 
8th  grade.  Also,  there  is  the  same  wide  variability  within  grades 
and  extensive  over-lapping  between  grades.  This  is  still  further 
shown  when  it  is  realized  that  one  pupil  in  a  4th  grade  writes  a  com- 
position better  than  the  median  composition  of  either  8th  grade  and 
that  there  are  many  4th  and  5th  grade  pupils  who  do  as  well  in 
composition  as  many  of  the  7th  and  8th  grade  pupils. 

^  .  .  .  Bv  comparing  the  median  scores  for  each  grade  in 

Comparison  zvitn  ,'  ^,.        .,,  ,. 

o  .  Lawrence  1  ownship  with  the  corresponding  scores 

bcores  tn  .  .  .  " .  ,  ,.,.^^,, 

^  .       r,,  given    tor    the    various     places    hsted    in    Table 

Other  Places  \  •    •      ,  if  r^ 

AAAIA,  It  is  clear  that  Lawrence  Township  not 

only  falls  distinctly  below  the  standards  for  this  test,  but  also  mate- 
rially below  a  large  majority  of  the  other  places  for  which  comparable 
scores  are  available. 

n  .     .  Much  more  attention  should  be  given  in  Law- 

Kecomviendations  _  ,.  ..        .„,.,        _^ 

x     r^  ■  ■  rence    i  ownship   to   writing   in   Lnghsh.     rower 

for  Lorn  position  1       u  1  •      j  1        1  •,    •  r 

should  be  gained  by  the  pupils  in  ease  of  expres- 
sion and  continuity  of  thought.  Enough  attention  must  be  given  to 
the  mechanical  features  of  punctuation,  capitalization,  paragraphing 


Lawrence  Toionship,  New  Jersey 


67 


H 

ai 

P3 

Q 

P^ 

H 

h^ 

O 

<1 

o 

•A 

c» 

'■' 

to 
2 

W- 

W 

iJ 

S 

hJ 

W 

w 

CO 

» 

Oi 

w 

S 

H 

O 

O 

u 

y. 

o 

H 

?: 

S 

-< 

M 

rn 

h] 

c 

b 

frt 

a, 

13 

n 

CO 

OJ 

t; 

o 

^ 

Z 

yj 

t= 

rii 

O 

Pi 

U 

< 

!>< 

P 

O 

CO 

\—i 

<i 

?; 

X 

CO 

on 

<5 

H 

y. 

^ 

^ 

CZ3 

a 

M 

PJ 

O 

o 

Ml 

^ 

< 

a 

<1 

O 

cu 

o 

H 

Q 

o 
O 

M 

a 
2; 

04 

<j 

l-H 

m 

tc 

tC 

w 

Iz; 

M 

^ 

O 
n 

02 

u 

S^ 

o 

<! 

H 

rn 

tt 

h-l 

< 

O 
O 

kJ 

« 

CO 

o 

ta 

r/j 

CO 

W 

H 

U 

M 

<! 

n 

« 

u 

O 

r^) 

^ 

n 

o 

H 

1^ 

03 

H 

o 

3 
o 


O  oj  lo  cc 
00  00  "*  a>  00 

CO      C^)      r-                 r-t 

00 

o  in  CO  ic  o 

05    Ci    C2    1— 1    IC 

CO    iM    --H    CO    CO 

5o' 

00 

CO 

1 

to 

.— ( 

*~i 

(50 

T— t 

>-( 

"H              CO  oi 

CO 

00 

lO    M    '-t           (M 

-i^    (M           lO    (M 

1— 1    1—) 

22 

00 

l-H 

^    lO    CO    O    GO 

22 

■rt<    O    --H    00 
1— 1 

1— 1     t^     GO     r-H 

S 

■^ 
■^ 

O    t-    C5 

©0 

CO 

eo 

o 

r-^      C-\      r-< 

^^ 

No. 
tak- 
ing 
test 

»C    t-^    (M    O    rO 

■— 1    CO    ^H    r^) 

^ 

t^    00   CO   (M    CO 
T-H    ^    (M 

o 

^     „,  T3   -^   Ph 

liiia 
lilll 

^     5     03     c3   ^ 
O    HH    S    S    W 

-is: 

3 

Ti    Oh 

^  S  8  g  « 
T,  £  S  5  3 

P^    J    H^    K    a 

1 

CD 

^   ^   ^  X   -C 

H-^       -f-^       -M      -4-^       -^ 

Tj^     tJ^     tJi     ^^     ^^^ 

X   -d   ^  ^  -C 

*i  -t-i  *^  -(_  .»i 
lO  m  lo  >c  »n 

68 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 


o 

o 


X 

X 
X 
X 

•J 
<: 


^    C    CO 
O    O   C:   t^ 

»o  CO  CO  CO 

GO 

CO     1— 1     -TtH 

CD    CJ    O 
^   ■^    CO 

4.68 
4.68 

00 

CD 

00 

CO 

>-< 
to 

!>0 

to 

n1 

T— 1 

>~( 

>-( 

to 

to 

T-H 

>-H 

CO 

(^ 

(M 

■SQ 

iCi 

1— 1     LO     O 

O    »C    GC' 

00 

1-H     1— 1 

§ 

50 

00 

lO  o  o 

.— 1    C^    I— 1 

CD    00    CO 

C5 
GO 

CO    CO 

'3^ 

GO 

- 

^    CXi    (M 

CO 

to 

<M 

©^ 

^ 

OS 

^ 

00 

O 

^T 

fS;  .2  '5  -i 

(M    ^    t^    Ol 

(M    CO    --1 

.^ 

Tt<     CO     O 
1-H      ^      CO 

00     --H 

^ 

GO 

School 

1 

p:;  ^  X  H 

-^      ^      ^ 

goo 
H   o   o 

g  ^  ^ 

fe    o    o 

M  Oi  M 

i1 

g       & 

hJ  CO 

f*.^ 

^ 

g 

1 

^  ^  ^  ^ 
-i^  -».2  -1.^  .^j 

CO  CO  CD  CO 

X  ^  -r: 
i>  t^  S 

1 

00    00 

Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 


69 


00 


CO 

6 


X 
1— I 

X 

X 

X 

>-^ 
< 


i:© 


lo 


GO 


'^ 


■* 


C/3 


CO 


CO 


LO  o  o 

O    lO    lO 


O    (M    CO  l>   -^    05 

05    O    (M    00    C-l    t^    Ol 


■*'*■* 


rti    lO    O    CO    lO    IC    lO 


t^  CO  00 

C5    >— I    >— I 


C-l    lO   ■*  CO   C5    c^ 

T-(    t~-    lO    00    CO    CO    C 


CO     Tf      T}< 


Tfl     T}H     -^     lO     Tf     lO     lO 


1^    iM    (M  ■*    00    1^  CO    C^l    O 

COCOGO  lOt^cOOtOt^'— I 


CO  CO  CO 


CO   CO   ■*    lO   CO   "*    ■* 


(M    CI    iM 

O    ^    '^i 


Ci    »0    ■*  T— I    ,— I    uO 

CO    lO    O    ■*    O    O    GO 


(M    CO    CO 


CO    (M    -*    "*    CI    ^    (M 


t^    lO    lO 
O   t^   t^ 


CI    --I    CD 
O   CO   ^ 


CO 


05 


d    CI    CI 


C4    CI    CO    -^    C4 


CI 


^ 
^ 


•v.  < 
^    I 

OJ  CO 


o 

o 

c3 


1-5   1-5 


o 


CO 
05    liO 


-*    lO 


CI 


Tt<     lO 


CO 

CO 


-^    P4 


3 
o3 


o    I  o  I 

O      0)  O  a; 

bC    8  bD  § 

.S  ^  .S  ^' 

t    c;  is  c 

CC  .S  X'  .5 

0)  QJ 


-£3 

3 
O 


e^  iz;  ^ 


^  03 

O  ^ 

CJ  pC 

CO  O 


o 


c3 
Ph 


IQ    LO 

CO  '# 


O 

CO  '^ 


CI 

CI    iC 


CI  CO 


o 


0)      CD 

o    c 

CJ     o 


-3      OJ      O 


o 


cc 

a; 
_> 

c3 


CO  02  CO  cc  o  !^  ^ 


c3     03 


c3 

-5 


c3 


§       §       §S^.  §WS§       H 


70  Survey  of  Public  School  System 

and  the  like  so  that  these  elements  will  not  absorb  the  attention  of  the 
pupil  during  the  writing  of  a  composition.  Effort  should  be  made 
to  bring  about  a  better  classification  within  grades.  The  median 
achievement  for  all  of  the  grades  should  be  materially  raised. 

Reading 

Thorndike-McCall  Reading  Test,  Scale  A. 

All  of  the  children  from  the  3rd  grade  through  the  8th  inclusive 
were  tested  on  Scale  A  of  the  Thorndike-McCall  Reading  Test.  The 
average  accomplishment  for  each  grade  of  each  school  is  given  in 
Table  XL.  From  this  table,  it  can  be  determined  that  the  children 
of  Lawrence  Township  are  consistently  slightly  below  the  standard 
and  quite  markedly  below  the  achievements  of  children  in  correspond- 
ing grades  in  other  cities  and  states.  There  is  a  very  wide  distribu- 
tion of  reading  ability  in  practically  all  of  the  grades,  but  the  average 
ability  for  each  grade  is  near  enough  to  the  standard  so  that  reading 
difficulties  cannot  be  assigned  as  the  cause  of  failure  to  approach 
standards  in  other  subjects.  The  detailed  scores  obtained  on  this 
test  show  that  a  number  of  4th  grade  children  can  read  as  well  as  some 
8th  grade  children  and  better  than  a  number  of  7th  grade  children. 


Reading  in  the 
Lower  Grades 


Haggerty  Reading  Test — Sigma  i. 

In  order  to  secure  a  test  of  the  reading  ability  of  the 

children  of  Lawrence  Township  in  the  2nd  and  3rd 

Grades,  Haggerty  Reading  Test,  Sigma  i  was  used 

in  all  of  these  grades  in  the  township.     A  distribution  of  the  scores 

obtained  by  grades  and  schools  is  given  in  Table  XLL 

J.     .     .  The  feature  of  this  table,  which  is  immediately  noticed, 

r  artatton 

.     p      ,.         is  the  very  great  range  in  reading  ability  within  each 

^     grade  in  the  several  schools.     This  is  greatest  in  Slack- 

wood  but  is  much  larger  than  it  should  be  in  all  of  the 

other  schools.     The  2nd  grade  in  Slackwood,  consisting  of  22  pupils, 

ranges  from  a  score  of  i  to  a  score  of  25  with  not  more  than  four  pupils 

on   any   one  step.     The  3rd  grade  in  Slackwood,  with   18   pupils, 

ranges  from  a  score  of  I  toascoreof  36,  with  not  more  than  two  pupils 

on  any  one  step.     Where  the  reading  ability  varies  in  this   manner 

from  almost  no  ability  to  read  up  to  a  reading  ability  comparable  to 

the  4th  or  5th  grade,  it  is  impossible  for  the  teacher  to  expect  anything 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey  71 

like  uniform  work  from  her  class.     The  pupils  at  the  lower  ends  of 

these  distributions  are  a  constant  handicap  to  the  other  pupils  in  the 

class  and  an  element  constantly  holding  back  the  achievement  of  the 

grade. 

^            .           .  ,  The  median  achievement  of  the  2nd  grade  is  8.^6 

Comparison  with  ,  .  ,    .    ,         ,•  ,    ,                 ,          ,              11/ 

r,        ,     7         ,  which  IS  but  slightly  more  than  the  standard  for 

Standards  and  ,                   1       1  •  ,    •    ^         ^             ■  ^^     ^    ^         , 

...                .  the  1st  grade  which  is  0.  and  materiallv  below  the 

Achievement  in  1      1  r       ,           1         1       1  •  1    •       '       t     itt- 

„  ,       r.7  standard  tor  the  2nd  grade  which  is  20.     in  Wis- 

Other  Places  .        ,      _               1       1  -i  1            1      ,     ,  1     1     , 
consin,  the  nrst  grade  children  who  had  had  the 

advantage  of  previous  kindergarten  training  received  a  score  of  1 1.7 
and  those  without  kindergarten  training  a  score  of  9.6,  both  of  which 
1st  grade  scores  are  higher  than  the  2nd  grade  achievements  in  Law- 
rence Township.  The  corresponding  achievements  in  the  two  Wis- 
consin groups  for  the  2nd  grade  were  23.4  and  20.  The  median  age 
of  the  2nd  grade  in  Lawrence  Township  is  8.2  years  and  on  the 
Pressey  Primer  Scale  this  grade  practically  met  the  standard  accom- 
plishment for  that  grade.  This  would  indicate  that  the  mental 
ability  of  the  2nd  grade  was  up  to  standard  and  that  it  should  there- 
fore be  able  to  meet  the  standards  in  reading.  According  to  the 
Haggerty  norms,  children  who  are  eight  years  of  age  should  be  able 
to  make  a  score  of  19  on  the  Haggerty  Reading.  Since  the  Lawrence 
Township  second  grades  average  slightly  more  than  eight  years  of 
age,  the  standard  of  20  for  that  grade  is  not  too  high  to  expect  from 
these  children.  The  median  score  of  the  3rd  grade  is  19.5.  This 
would  indicate  that  the  reading  ability  of  the  3rd  grade  in  Lawrence 
Township  is  slightly  less  than  the  standard  for  the  2nd  grade.  In 
other  words,  the  3rd  grade  children  in  Lawrence  Township  are  almost 
exactly  one  grade  behind  in  their  reading  ability. 

In  the  Slackwood  3rd  grade,  referred  to  above,  where  the  range 
of  reading  ability  extends  from  i  to  36  and  where  only  6  of  the  18 
pupils,  or  one-third  of  the  class  exceed  the  standard  for  the  2nd  grade, 
the  situation  is  serious  enough  to  demand  immediate  investigation 
and  readjustment. 

^       J        The  use  of  this  test  very  clearlv  locates  one  of  the  serious 

difficulties  in  the  educational  situation  in  Lawrence  Town- 
sion 

ship,  namely  the  inability  of  the  children  in  the  lower  grades  to 

read  as  well  as  children  in  similar  grades  in  other  districts.  No  other 
subject  is  as  important  in  the  lower  grades  or  influences  the  accomplish- 
ment in  other  subjects  as  much  as  does  reading.     The  discovery  that 


72 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 


o 

o 

a 
« 

O 

> 

P 
►J 

o 


X! 


H 
O 

o 

o 


2^ 


►J 
<; 
o 
m 

O 

o 


w 

Q 

Bi 
o 

X 

« 
o 
fa 

« 
O 

o 

m 

o 
g 

a 


o 
O 

o 

K 


Pi    "" 

1-5 


GC 

o 


o 


-73 


5     2 


s 

1 

t~    (S    \0    Oi          lO 

0    0    0    050(0 
C^    CO    (M    C^    CO    CO 

41.1 

38.4 

01  CO 

CO    CO 

X 

§5 

r 

CO    CO 

^  9 

O    Ol 

toi 

1  § 

1 

1  s? 

;l               1 

1  § 

1 

II             1 

1  ^ 

!l 

II             1 

i  ? 

II 

II              1 

1  § 

II 

II             1 

1  § 

II 

1 

'-' 

~ 

i  S   1 

1 

1 

o 

o 

1  §   1 

1 

o 

r-     -1 

e^ 

1  ^   1 

1 

II 

o 

o  o 

o 

«5 

II 

II  ^ 

f— <    1—1 

rH     O 

"5 

93 

II      " 

^ 

©J 

o 

-H      rt 

^     -H 

~* 

1  5   1 

Ol   o 

•3* 

Ol 

Ol    lO 

rH     O 

*•< 

1  ^  1 

CO   o 

93 

'- 

O    CO 

CO  o 

t^ 

1  ^  1 

O   Ol 

r-t 

CO 

to    1 

i-H 

rH     lO 

-*  o 

*H 

1  ^^  1 

CSI    rt 

O    OI 

XJ 

o 

O    CO 

CO  o 

Oi 

1  2^  1 

o  ^ 

O    Ol 

93     1 

^ 

Ol  -r 

rH     rH 

00 

— C                          rt     -H 

93     1 

O)    T)< 

o  ^ 

K     I 

»-H 

Ol  CO 

o  o 

to 

^  o 

■SJ 

O   00 

O     -H 

Cl     1 

O    Ol 

rH      O 

93 

O      - 

50 

rt              ^  o 

■^ 

O)     .-H 

O    rt 

■^ 

--<    Ol 

rH     Ol 

to 

^ 

50 

o       -^  o  o 

^     1 

Ol    -- 

rt  CO 

«^ 

(M    CO 

rH     O 

to 

&^ 

50 

c       o  o  o 

O 

^    CO 

o  ■* 

00 

O    Ol 

o  o 

■51 

00 

rt   rt         o   o   o 

l^J 

(M    CO 

O      -H 

to 

O    CO 

o  o 

93 

1  5? 

O  -H         o  o  o 

'^    1 

o  CO 

O    Ol 

«3     1 

o  o 

O     rH 

>H 

- 

ao 

^   rt         O   o  o 

e*    j 

o  o 

O    O) 

<5< 

o  o 

rH     O 

**» 

(30 

C<1   "-1          o   o   --■ 

1 

O     -H 

rH     CO 

«o 

O     rH 

o 

»Hi 

«5 

O    O           '-^    O 

•- 

O    -H 

^  o 

«! 

O     rH 

o 

1^ 

GO 

r-^     0\     <^     ,-i     Oi 

00    1 

o  o 

O    Ol 

©1 

o 

o 

c 

1  <= 

1      "30 

o  «  o  o  o 

*-i 

o  o 

o  o 

o 

o 

^ 

l-t 

1      °i 

-^      -H     w      O      — 

W 

O    '-^ 

o  o 

■*-<     1 

o 

o 

1      ■=. 

1  ^ 

<N    O    O    CM 

-^ 

o  o 

O     -H 

>*i 

o 

o 

1  ** 
1  ^ 

o  ^  o  c 

*-H 

o  c 

Ol     rt 

CO     1 

o 

o 

1   '^ 

1  ^ 

O   CO    o   <-< 

^^ 

o  o 

o 

o 

^ 

*.H 

^ 

O    O    rt    .-H 

^.    I 

o 

•-i 

51 

IM    -H    O    --I 

^    1 

° 

-> 

»-H 

1 

^ 
■^ 

OI     r-. 

9,      1 

" 

^ 

®1 

No. 
teat 

O   X    Tji    CO   o   w 

2^ 

1 

t^    Ol 

M    CO 

00  CO 

Ol 

■* 

op 

00 

CO    o 

rH     Tf 

01    t^ 

Ol 

S    §    0)    oii  ^5 

c   S   M  be  c3   S; 

§  ,=3  2  2  o  ^ 
►J  K  W  W  K  O 

"a  o 

03   ^ 

o     '-'     i- 

S  w  o 

<•*» 

5 

^ 

a 

si   ^ 

I-H     t/3 

a; 

ci 
Oc 

o  S 
M    OS 

~  -3 

~    in 

-i   o 

; 

3 

5 

-3  -a  -d  -rr  -3  -73 
u    u    t4    (m    u    ^ 
CO  CO  CO  CO  CO  CO 

•71     •*■ 

lO 

j3  .a 

J3   J 

;    i 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 


73 


e 


X 


05    1>    01    O 

oc  CO  to  00 

tT     -^     -^     ^ 

<31 
00 

-•I- 

cc  c-i  o 

IM    00    --I 
lO    IC    lO 

00  -^ 

00 

to 

W5 

II 

II 

II 

II 

1     11 

ll                    1 

1     11 

11                     1 

1     II 

'-       ^ 

"'     11 

CO         1 

SO 

1     II 

o  ^  o 

^     11 

.-■    CO      1 

^t 

^  1  ^  II 

O    !M    O 

'^     11 

O   '"     1 

»-^ 

o    1    -    11  -  -  o    1 

^     II 

CO  CO    1 

to 

0>-i           0|'-<ll-^C^iM| 

>0     II 

■-.  o    1 

>-^ 

.-H    ■<}<           O      1     "5     II    O    TO    "      1 

^    II 

'O    CO      1 

Co 

C<3C-^^-^      |i-!|(NMCO 

00      || 
ll 

O)   ffi     1 

00 

(M    C^    O             1      ^t     II     Ol    O    t'      1 

=.  II 

IM    CO      1      i^ 

CO  cc  »o          1    ^    II   o  ^  CO 
1    '-H    II 

^  11 

o  •^    1    -- 

(N   Tf   r-i           1    i-    1     CO         CO 

CO    ll 

o  c^i    \    c-i 

lOTfO          |Oi||^        co|-<)- 

o 

o 

(NiCCO          |o||co         oij'^i 

o 

o 

rt    IN    -<              1     ~^      1                    °      1     '^     1 

i-H                   1       >-i 

(N    CO    -<              1      ^      II                    "      1     '"'      1 

o  o             1   o    II            o    1   o    1 

O  r^                1    '^    11               °     1    "^    1 

o  o               1    '^    11              "     1    '^    1 

O    O                    JO 

1             1 

1 

^    '- 

■JS) 

1                            1              1 

1              1 

1                            1             1 

1 

1 
1 

1 

1 

1              11 

1 

1 

1     1 

II 

1     1 

II 

1 

1 

1                               1 

1 

1 

1                               1 

CO    f^    (M    (M 

M    CO    rt 

? 

^S?:^ 

CC    Ol 

Lawrence 

Slackwood 
Eldridge  Park 
Rosedale 

1 

Lawrence 

Slackwood 

Slackwood 

1 

"3 

j;  ^  j3  ja 
^   ^   ^J   -M 

o   O   to   5D 

^  j:  X 
-«^  -f^  -^ 
t>  r^  r^ 

J3   J3 

M    CO 

-a 

e 


00 


oO«;acoiot^-*ic>c 


CCOSOiOO'-iOOOCOiNIN 
iCiOiOiOt^tO»C»OOtO 


t~  o  o  CO  a  CC  00  f~  o  o 


cooooioocc"-o»-^cooo 
lO   lO  lO  O  O   »0  lO   lO  »o   »o 


oor^tcot^LOooiC 


CC    o 

■4<    LO 


t--  -^  r-i  o  c^)  c; 

O    lO    lO    -^    »C    to 


CD  o  CO  CO  o  o  ira  o".  '-0  CO 


■^  tc  1-- 
■*  -i(  ^ 


CO  CO  i^  o  CO 

lO    -^    Tt    -^    1-0 


00003C5'-<OiO'l<X 


OC5CCOOi-l'OiCi-i 
COCO't't'^CO'^00'*'* 


r-  t^  00  01  o 


O    CO    (N    00    O 

CO 

r-  o 

CO    CO    CO    CO     TtH 

CO 

CO  CO 

n 

o 

>, 

>> 

tH 

•a 

a 
W 

■4J 

O 

3 

o 

3 

fl 

>. 

03 

C 
en 

<u 

a 

E 
S 

o 

§ 

u 

03 

a 

03 

o 

C 
Z 

cf 

o 

13 
c3 

.5 

"-1 

•n 

> 

►^ 

tc 

c. 

03 

c3 

s 

^ 

a 

.2 

& 

iJ 

C 

fe 

o 

ro 

ro 

o 

:s 

C3 

03 

+-» 

e^ 

f« 

CO 

»— 1 

i-J 

Pi 

a. 

7J 

74 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 


X 


u 

03 

(S 
(^ 

?: 

H 
Z 
P 

O 

O 

en 

w 
« 


|T1 

»3 

to 

o 

Z 

o 

o 

^ 

o 

M 

Tl 

M 

C 

O 

Pi 

Z 

bl 

<K 

M 

T) 

§ 

?^ 

•< 
^ 

o 

o 

tL< 

'^ 

1— 1 

a; 

-f 

3 

•3 

^ 

3 

<! 

W 
Pi 

>! 

H 

a 
a 
o 
<i 

W 

z 
o 

02 

« 

o 
tj 


Q 


02      .S2 


CO 


Haggerty 

Standards 

6,000 

pupils 

i 

^ 

Is 

-a    u 

1^ 

(N    rt    lO    lO 

00    t-    O    OS 

to 

O    "O    iC 

rH     CM     1-1 

^ 

- 

>-i 

S 

1 

-^ 

>-i 

00 

1 

^ 

*-< 

S2 

II 

O 

2J 

<50 

II 

o 

55 

II 

o 

^ 

II 

*-( 

i^  1 

II 

o 

^1              I       II  -^      -" 

<JJ 

^1              1       II 

^ 

^  1  ^            1  -^    II 

'-H 

^1           ^  1  -    II 

*^ 

^  1    -      ^  n    II 

<s» 

1?  1           ^  1  ^    II 

*H 

ti  1              1  ^    II 

^-1 

53  1  ^    -^    -  n    II 

©1 

o    1                   ^  ^    1    ^         II              

«0 

5  1"            1  --     II       ^  ^  ^ 

so 

SS  1                      1  "^                        ^ 

>-s 

*^           1                                                                                    1         '^                        II                                    I-l       T-( 

©J 

;0|                                  r-li-H|(5)                II                        ^C>lr-t 

-^ 

SI                                                        i      ^                il 

>-l 

^^1                                  M     C>I        1      -<^               II                        r-.              i-H 

^ 

^1                           1   o        II 

Si 

=5^        i                            T-H     Ol                   1        ^                  II                                      " 

*H 

-,     1                     rt  ^     1    (Jj          II                          OJ 

SJ 

o    1              ^  cc  ^.    1    to         II 

Oi       1                       C-)    CO               1      IQ              II 

03     1    ^   eg   CI   ^   rf     1     N.          11 

f^       1                -H     Tf                          1       IC)                II 

to     1          •-'              rt     1    ^          '1               '-I 

'-^ 

iQ     1                           rt     1    *-i          II          "             "-1 

'-i 

^1               m  CO  CO     1    05          II          z 

eo    I               lO  !M          1    f^          11          o               " 

*-l 

^1                   CM    ^    Tt<      1     i^            II            z 

>-,     1                     ^  ^     1    (^          II                          ^ 

*-H 

O      1                            IN              1      ©J             II 

No. 

taking 

Test 

Tl<    lO    '-I    CO    iM 
CM    !M    IN 

§ 

C^    O    l>    CO    X 

,-H      1— 1 

^ 

1 

o  Pi  w  -:;  M 
1 

C3  rs 
^  §2  ^  § 

O  Pi  W  k4  M 

1 

N 

1 

1 

CO 

Lawrence  Township ,  New  Jersey  75 

children  in  Lawrence  Township  are  a  year  behind  in  their  reading 

achievement  when,  by  virtue  of  the  reception  grade,  they  should  be  a 

year  ahead  and  furthermore  when  the  measurements  of  mental  ability 

show  that  the  children  in  these  grades  should  accomplish  as  much  as 

the  children  in  other  districts,  it  is  very  clearly  seen  that  primary 

reading  should  be  one  of  the  first  problems  to  be  studied  and  solved 

in  Lawrence  Township. 

Both  of  the  reading  tests  show  that  with  a  little 
Recomviendattons  ^^     ^-       ^  j-  •  n     •     ^u    i 

more  attention  to  readmg,  especially  in  the  lower 

grades,  the  children  in  Lawrence  Township  could 
be  made  to  reach  and  perhaps  exceed  the  standard  for  these  tests. 
Particular  emphasis  should  be  placed  upon  more  rapid  silent  reading 
for  content.  Improvement  in  this  phase  of  reading  would  be  of  mate- 
rial assistance  in  practically  all  other  school  subjects. 

General  Intelligence 

r        In  making  any  comparisons  between  the  pupil  accom- 

^,  .  ^-^  plishment  in  Lawrence  Township  with  other  school 
This  Test 

systems,  or  between  the  schools  of  Lawrence  Township, 

it  is  quite  necessary  to  know  whether  the  pupils  compared  have  ap- 
proximately the  same  general  ability  before  any  constructive  diag- 
nosis can  be  made  of  the  reasons  for  variations.  In  order  that  this 
might  be  done  in  Lawrence  Township,  two  general  intelligence 
measures  were  used,  the  National  Intelligence  Test  in  grades  3  to  8 
and  the  Pressey  Primer  Scale  in  the  reception  grade  and  grades  I 
and  2. 

The  National  Intelligence  Test  was  given  to  all  of  the 
children  in  Lawrence  Township  from  the  3rd  grade  to 

„        ^  the  8th  inclusive.     The  scores  earned  on  this  test  by 

T est 

*  children  of  each  grade  in  each  school  are  given  in  Table 

XLII.  The  contrast  between  this  table  and  the  other  tables  on  the 
measurement  of  achievement  is  immediately  evident.  Here,  for  the 
first  time,  there  is  a  regular  advancement  from  grade  to  grade,  the 
median  achievement  of  each  grade  being  distinctly  higher  than  that 
of  the  preceding  grade.  This  is  conclusive  evidence  that  the  children 
in  the  upper  grades  are  possessed  of  as  much  native  ability  as  the 
children  in  the  lower  grades,  consequently  the  failure  of  these  grades 
to  make  regular  progress  in  the  subjects  measured  cannot  be  attrib- 
uted to  a  lack  of  ability  to  do  the  work.     They  must  therefore  be 


76 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 


CO 

Z 

o 
H 

a 
o 


O 
> 


GO 


g      >' 


a: 

D 


P 

H 
a; 

H 

H 


X 


g 

o 
O 

H 
U 

K 
E- 
Z 


<; 
z 
o 

H 
^1 

Z 
O 
O 

z 

n 
C 

a 
« 
o 


o 
o 


■j: 


o 

o 

0) 

-^ 
3 


(M    »C    X           rO    O 

1-H    UD   Tji    t^    (N    GO 
00   CO   (N    <M    CD    fC 

(30 

(M    '^    t^   t^    CO 

t^  (D  (N  ,-i  id 

UO   <D   rfi   UO   t^ 

•is 

IK 

CC   »0    GO 

.-H   C   CO          o   c 
CO    CO    fM           CO    ■* 

CO 

00  c;  id  oi 
>ci  ic  CO  Tt< 

1 

§ 

1—1 

■~( 

§ 

T-H 

■»*-i 

.— 1  CO  >-<  CO  CO 

g 

.— 1                          ■— ( 

s^ 

CO    CD           CO    "—I 

00 

§ 

(^^             ^ 

(30     11     lO    »0    (M    --H 

GO 

§ 

(M    C^l                   --1 

«5 

CO  LO        lo 

(30 
>1 

s. 

^H    CO            •— 1    CI    ■— < 

oo 

lo  t^        CO  ■— 1 

^ 

^     (M     r^                          '-< 

00 

.-(    Ol    CO    (M 

(20 

§ 

-^     IC     ^ 

(30 

.-1     r-<     IM     CO 

i^ 

1—1    CO    'M    "-^ 

t^ 

1— (      1— (      r-H 

&:> 

o 

i-H    (M 

5C 

No.  tak- 
ing lest 

CO    C    t-    C^l    CD    (M 

O    '-^    (31   CD    lO 

^  CO        (>5 

^ 

o 
o 

-2       -^-^ 
>  Td  &.  CU        ^ 

hJ  S  tq  W  p^  O 

i-<i 

a 

g 

1             1 
>  T3  -d  Ph  ^ 

S   s   ^  -T3   2 

i  ^  ^  2  ^ 

J  OQ  Oi  W  O 

• 

60 

1 

■73  -d  -3  -rJ  -d  t3 

;.     ;.      ;h     U     ;h     Lh 
CO    CO    CO   CO    CO   CO 

xi  Si  js  ^  j^ 

-tJ      -4^      -kJ      .+i      -fJ 
Tf     Tf*     ^     ■^      ^ 

Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 


77 


'« 


tf 

o 

O 


X 


CO  O  05  O  lO 

(M  (N  (M  '^  ^ 

00  t^  l>  00  CO 

Co 

CO  CO  CO  ^ 
•-'  <6  CO  d> 

C5  O  O  CO 

I-H      I-H 

112.0 
121.1 
109. 

>-H 
>-< 

130.2 
127.8 

00 

CO 

o  ic  -*  CO  »o 

GC  i^  t^  00  oo 

00 

89. 

104.5 

96.3 

to 

05 

113.3 
127.5 
110.6 

126.4 
123.3 

1 

1 

Cl  Cl 

^ 

i-H 

>~( 

I-H  d  CI 

ici 

^  CO 

^ 

T-H 

■"^ 

^H  CO  I— ( 

"ij 

CO  CO 

Co 

CO  ^H  I-H 

*cj 

Tt'  Tf  Tf^ 

>-< 

t^  CO 

iM 

<3^ 

'TO:                          SO 

CO  CI  00 

CO 

>-H 

1  Cl  CO 

1 

00 

(M  lO 

f^ 

O 

CO  T-i  CO 

CI     CO 

=0 

CI  CI 

-* 

CO  ^  t^  io  oi 

"to 

T}-   lO   ^             ^ 

"^   r^   -rr 

Oi 

1    "^^ 

<Ji 

,— 1   Tf   lO   ■*   >— 1 

lO 

■^ 

•/:  CO  I-H    1  Ci 

^ 

CO 

1 

CO  (M  O  (M  (CI 

■•-1 

'^  CO  Cl        Ci 

T-H 

*-H 

1 

CO  t^  (M 

CO  I-H            ^cj- 

1 

I-H 

>-H 

^^  I-H 

©i 

I — 1 

i--( 

1-H 

■"-1    1 

j 

1 

1 

^ 

>«H 

1 

1 

1 

OO  CI  O  CO  t- 

--H  -*  CI 

S 

CO  L'^  t-H  CI 

CI  CO  rH 

■-0  CI  o 

I-H   ^   CI 

r-  ci 

I-H  CI 

so 

Lawrenceville 
Lawrence 
Slackwood 
Eldridge  Park 
Rosedale 

Lawrenceville 
Slackwood 
Eldridge  Park 
Rosedale 

LavvrenceviUe 

Slackwood 

Slackwood 

Lawrenceville 
Slackwood 

J3  ^  ^  ^  ^ 

+J  +2  -tJ  -U   -U 

lO  >0  lO  lO  lO 

^1    ^4    ^    .-H 
.*->   4-'   -t^   -t-> 

CO  CO  CO  CO 

r^       ^       r^ 

"ii  13  '3 
i^  t^  i^ 

00  00 

78 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 


s 


X 


00 


OS 

e 


<to 


lO 


(30 


iC  00 


lO  X  QO  O  CC 

c^i  (M  M  CO  ec 


■ 

^ 

-^ 

{» 

IC    (N    CC    fC   ^ 

rl     r-     !M     ^     (N 

o  t^  lo  o  r^ 

O  O  O  C5  o 


C  00 


00  c^  '*  (N  o; 

t^  O  GO  00  00 


w   I> 


"51^  CD  1>  Ci  C^ 
lO  lO  O  Id  I> 


IC  CI 


CO  CO 


c 

o 

cS 

o3 

^3 

^ 
n 

1 

> 

1 

i-l 

^ 

cS 

s 
r. 

o 

-w 

U-i 

L 

U 

ca 

o 

c 

c 

U 

kj 

n 

=< 

, 

o 

C 

il 

o 

•  -* 

,  r^ 

o 

!S 

si 

rt 

««-' 

« 

W         —   ^^    -w  I 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jerseij 


79 


explained  on  the  basis  of  lack  of  emphasis  in  these  subjects  on  the  part 
of  the  supervisor  and  the  teachers  in  these  grades.  The  intelligence 
scores  shown  in  Table  XLII  confirm  the  fact  noted  in  connection  with 
all  other  tables  that  the  children  in  Lawrence  Township  are  very 
poorly  classified  since  the  scores  spread  over  a  range  of  80  to  no 


Chart  No.  15 

Distribution  of  Scores,  National  Intelligence  Test 

Lawrence  Township 

Showing  Extreme  Range  of  Ability  in  Each  Grade  and  Over-lapping  of  Grades. 


C»'g=i                                                                                                                                       1 

■■0 

t                                       III'       ^''C^   ^ 
*                                       1                  1              <         ' 
'                                        '                  1              I         ' 

ic 

:ci 

ic 
c 
^o 
zc 
ic 
0 

ifi- 
20 
10 
c 
:c 

21' 
10- 
0 
30 
20. 
10- 

'                 J                  J                I             .        (       cradt   4 

1                 ,                  1                 ■            1        1 

1                 ,                  '                 '            '        '    1 ^"^'  * 

'                1               1            .             cr«d«   t 

1                  '                 '                '             '              Cr«de   7 

•                                    '                1              '        ' 

,                                    1                               1        '      Cr»de  e 

1                   '                  1                '              1        < 

Scores    0      10     20     3D    *0     5C      60     70     60     90    100  110  120  130  140  150  160  170 


points  in  each  grade.  The  instructional  difficulties  presented  to  a 
teacher,  because  of  the  wide  variation  of  ability  within  one  class,  are 
obvious  when  the  scores  on  this  test  for  a  given  grade  are  noticed. 
For  example,  a  grade  of  17  pupils  contains  one  pupil  whose  score  is 
zero,  three  whose  scores  are  between  10  and  20,  four  whose  scores  are 
between  20  and  30,  two  between  30  and  40,  three  between  40  and  50, 
two  between  50  and  60,  one  between  60  and  70  and  one  between  70 
and  80.  With  this  range  of  ability,  group  instruction  in  this  class  is 
almost  out  of  the  question. 


80  Survey  of  Public  School  System 

^  .  When  the  median  scores  for  Lawrence  Township  are 

.  ,    „  ,  compared  with  those  for  Baltimore   and   particularly 

T\-  i  •  f  '<n\'0!\  the  more  comparable  scores  for  Michigan  cities, 

the  general  conclusion  is  warranted  that  the  children  of 
Lawrence  Township  are  as  intelligent  and  capable  as  the  children  in 
other  similar  sections.  This  conclusion  adds  significance  to  the  fact 
that  the  achievement  of  these  pupils  in  the  school  subjects  measured 
is  in  almost  every  instance  below  the  standard  and  below  the  accom- 
plishment of  other  districts.  The  reason  for  this  must  be  found  in 
organization,  supervision,  or  instruction. 

„  Li  order  to  verifv  the  conclusions  from  the  use  of  the  Na- 

t  ressey       •        i   t       n-  t^        •       i      i 

„   .  tional  Intelligence    lest  in  the  lower  grades,  the  Pressey 

^^     .  Primer  Scale  was  used  in  the  reception  and  first  two  grades. 

This  was  done  because  this  scale  can  be  used  with  the 
younger  children  and  directions  given  orally,  whereas  the  National 
Intelligence  Test  necessitates  the  ability  to  read  paragraphs  and  rec- 
ognize words  in  a  number  of  the  tests.  Table  XLIII  gives  the  scores 
made  by  the  children  in  these  three  grades  of  the  schools  in  Lawrence 
Township.  Because  of  the  fact  that  Lawrence  Township  has  a  re- 
ception grade  through  w^hich  a  majority  of  the  children  go  before 
reaching  the  ist  grade,  it  would  be  expected  that  the  children  in  the 
1st  and  2nd  grades  would  very  easily  exceed  the  median  accomplish- 
ment for  the  regular  ist  and  2nd  grades.  In  the  light  of  this,  it  is 
noteworthy  that  the  1st  grade  exceeds  the  standard  for  ist  grades  by 
only  0.7  of  a  step,  while  this  slight  advantage  is  lost  by  the  close  of  the 
2nd  grade  where  the  median  for  the  grade  is  3.2  below  the  standard 
for  that  grade.  The  additional  time  caused  by  the  reception  grade 
does  not  seem  justified  in  the  scores  attained. 

Table  XLIII  again  confirms  the  conclusion  that  the  classifica- 
tion within  grades  is  extremely  loose  and  that  the  addition  of  the  re- 
ception grade,  even  where  only  the  first  two  grades  are  concerned, 
does  not  tend  to  remedy  this  situation.  Where  a  class  of  1st  grade 
children  vary  as  much  as  the  1st  grade  in  Eldridge  Park,  namely  from 
o  to  a  score  of  64,  the  value  of  the  reception  grade  as  additional  means 
of  adjustment  is  not  substantiated.  Such  a  wide  range  of  ability  is 
also  found  continuing  into  the  2nd  grade  in  the  Eldridge  Park  School. 
The  range  of  variation  is  only  slightly  less  in  the  Slackwood  and  Law- 
renceville  schools. 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 


81 


X 


w 

CO 

o 

H 

u 

O 

< 

O 

O 

^    . 
O    f" 

H    JO 

^    M 

"^ 

fa     >* 
°     § 


O 


o 


hi] 
u 

« 
« 
» 

03 
DQ 

» 

Ph 

tz; 
o 

OS 

P3 
O 


CO 


c 
c 

e3 


O 

O 

CI 

a 


c 
o 

CO 

o 

o3 

O 

a; 

o 
o 

T3 

■+^ 

5 


Standards 
By 

Grade 

CO 

to 

Score  for 
Lawrence 
Township 

o   -)<   to 

CO    00 

«5 

•*  d  o  CO 
lO  >o  -r  CO 

to 

CO 

O    O    to 
to    O    lO 

Median 
Chrono- 
logical Age 

t-    CO    C) 

cc  o  o 

to 

o  "O  ro  o 

to   l^    to    IX 

00    lO    t/3 
t~    CO    CO 

0! 

CO 

§ 

1 

I^J 

g 

1 

1    IM    C^    ^ 

W5 

j 

II    -^           ^' 

CO 

to 

1— 1 

*^    1 

rt  ^  ^        — 

-<^   II   i>\  o)             CI 

to 

to 

rt  rt 

©<      1      C^)    C^l    !>)            --> 

;^ 

§ 

r-H 

^-1 

CO    tM 

'.-3      II     r)l    lO    CO 

to 

rH 

^ 

^      rM                ^      -^ 

Ci      II     CO    CO    ^ 

j^ 

r-l     ^              CO 

.==      1 

(N    >#    ,-1    ,-1    rt 

a> 

i-H    !N 

■30 

t-l     t     CVl     ^     — 

C     1 

C>J            i-t    ^ 

-t 

rH     l» 

■SO 

^                        "M 

^     1 

1— 1                     T— 1 

©5 

%      !  - 

<5! 

C-1                !N     M 

to    1 

>-(  CO  "  •-I 

to 

^ 

^                - 

0^ 

.1                O      .M 

^    1 

(M 

<j) 

CO 

^^ 

^* 

—1     C-1 

^    1 

CJ    rt 

■30 

CO 

CO 

S3 

[     CI     ^             -^ 

--^    1 

'^ 

■*-H 

^                     T-(                     ^ 

SO 

1                 rH     rt      C) 

^    1 

(M           i-H 

StI 

^ 

CO 

CO 

1                                                 *"* 

~    1 

Oi 

^ 

to 

'^ 

*-i 

1                 1— t 

>-i 

Oi           !M 

-* 

1                                      ^ 

s<    1 

00 

rt    C^l    ■* 

^ 

1                                      "^ 

-t- 

1 

CO         to 

t33 

O 

©< 

1 

rt   o 

O 

CO 

CO 

cc  o   to   O  CO 

rt     .-H      C-) 

■n  o  CO  c:  -r 

.-H     ,-1      ,-1      C) 

IN    00    ^    ^1    ^ 
Oi    c-1    CI 

■5 

^■2 

o    S    tt,  ^  :3 

0)    ^ 

1  II  Oil 

f-(        K  S  J  y  K  O 

00 

si 

M  1^  pq  K  O 

c 

c   c   c   c   c 
*c.  a  *a  a  *a 

o    c;    t;    c;    o 

Cj      O      O      C>      Cj 

tf  rt  K  tf  tf 

Cl    CI    CI    CI    CI 

82  Survey  of  Public  School  System 

^       ,     .  From   the  tests   and   measurements   made  of  the 
Conclusions  ,  .,  ,  .       _  _  ,  .         ,        r  ,,      • 

,,  children    m    Lawrence     iownship,    the    foUowme 
on  JVl €CisuT£TH6nt  . 

r    .  1  .  conclusions  and  recommendations  are  iustified: 

0]  /I ChX€V 6^,6711  . 

J  J      .,.  I — Progress  in  a  majority  of   the   school  subjects 

ana  Inlelugence  .      .  ...  •* 

IS  slower  m  the  upper  grades. 

2 — There  is  an  unusually  large  and  unnecessary  amount  of  overlap- 
ing  between  grades,  many  3rd  and  4th  grade  children  in  a  number 
of  the  subjects  achieving  the  same  scores  as  those  in  the  8th 
grade  in  these  same  subjects. 

3 — The  unusual  variation  in  the  abilities  within  any  one  grade  of 
any  school  gives  evidence  of  a  lack  of  attention  to  the  classifi- 
cation of  pupils  and  materially  increases  the  difficulty  of  class 
instruction  and  mitigates  against  the  effectiveness  of  the  teach- 
ing. 

4 — In  practically  every  subject  measured,  the  children  of  Lawrence 
Township  fall  below  established  standards  for  the  subjects 
measured  and  below  the  achievement  of  children  of  the  same 
grades  in  other  districts.  When  it  is  borne  in  mind  that  Law- 
rence Township  has  developed  a  nine  grade  system  of  schools 
and  that  the  children  of  each  grade  have  an  advantage  over 
children  of  similar  grades  in  other  school  systems,  this  fact  has 
additional  serious  significance. 

5 — The  measurement  of  intelligence  shows  that  the  children  of  Law- 
rence Township  are  as  capable  as  the  children  in  any  such  typical 
situation  so  that  any  failures  in  accomplishment  may  not  be 
attributed  to  natural  inability. 

6 — The  value  of  the  reception  grade  as  a  means  of  better  adjustment 
and  more  accurate  classification  of  pupils  is  not  justified  by  any 
of  the  tests  given.  On  the  other  hand,  it  seems  to  represent  a 
year  largely  wasted  so  far  as  additional  progress  through  the 
grades  is  concerned. 

n  J        I — A  careful  detailed  and  scientific  study  should  be 

si-CCOtntn^nuci- 

conducted    by    the    supervising    principal    and 

teachers  of  Lawrence  Township  on  the  problem 
of  pupil  classification.  Tests  similar  to  those  utilized  in  his 
study  should  be  used  for  the  purpose  of  better  adjustment  be- 
tween  grades    and    within  grades.     These    tests  should  be  used 


Lawrence  Toivnship,  New  Jersey  .        83 

to  supplement  the  grades  given  as  a  result   of  the  regular  ex- 
aminations by  the  teachers. 

2 — Semi-annual  promotions  should  be  definitely  established. 

3 — A  number  of  schools  and  grades  within  schools  should  be  com- 
pletely reorganized  in  order  to  eliminate  the  very  great  varia- 
bility within  any  one  grade.  Where  necessary,  grades  should  be 
divided  into  sections  on  the  basis  of  age  and  ability. 


PART  VI 

THE  SCHOOL  BUILDINGS 

In  measuring  the  school  plants  of  Lawrence  Township,  each 
building  was  scored  on  the  Strayer-Engelhardt  Score  Card  for  Village 
and  Rural  School  Buildings.  This  score  card  has  been  devised  for 
use  in  the  scoring  of  rural  school  buildings  so  that  judgment  may  be 
rendered  on  all  important  items  of  building  construction  and  physical 
requirements.  Whenever,  through  the  use  of  this  score  card,  a 
school  plant  scores  i,ooo  points,  it  is  considered  a  perfect  plant. 
These  i,ooo  points  have  been  distributed  among  the  five  main  ele- 
ments of  a  school  plant  and  each  of  these  five  elements  has  been  as- 
signed a  definite  weighting,  as  follows  — 

Site 1 60  points 

Building  Structure 200 

Service  Systems 250 

Classrooms 225 

Special  Rooms 165 

It  will  be  observed  from  Chart  No.  16,  which  reproduces  the 
Strayer-Engelhardt  Score  Card,  that  each  of  these  items  is  subdi- 
vided so  as  to  allow  a  certain  weight  to  be  attached  to  each  of  the 
factors  that  go  to  make  up  these  five  main  divisions. 

In  scoring  the  buildings,  three  judges  scored  each  building.  The 
medians  of  the  judgments  rendered  were  utilized  in  making  up  the 
final  score.  In  this  way,  an  erratic  score  on  one  item,  by  any  indi- 
vidual, was  eliminated. 

Table  XLIV,  following,  gives  the  final  scores  allotted  to  each  of 

the  five  buildings  of  Lawrence  Township  on  the  five  main  items  of  the 

score  card  and  the  principal  subdivisions  of  each. 

.      .  It  is  the  opinion  of  those  who  have  made  a  careful 

*    -  study  of   school   buildings   and   the   standards   as   set 

■^  forth  on  the  Strayer-Engelhardt  Score  Card  for  Rural 

Buildings  that  when  a  building  scores  between  800  and  1,000  points, 

it  is  satisfactory  and  meets  the  educational  demands  made  upon  it. 

A  building  scoring  700  to  800  points  is  only  fairly  satisfactory 
and  is  usually  lacking  in  many  elements  that  are  essential  to  accept- 
able administration  of  a  modern  educational  program. 


Lawrence  Township  y  New  Jersey 
Chart     ^o.  16 
Stray er-Engelhardt  Score  Card  For  Rural  School  Building 
Score  of  Building 


85 


I 

2 

3 

I 

, 

3 

I.  Site 

IM  1 

E.  Schedule  and  Emergency  Equipment 

20 

A.  Location 

63 

1    Qock 

5 

I.  Accesiribility 

30  ' 

2.  Bell 

5 

2.  Environment 

35  , 

3.  Telephone 

5 

B.  Drainage 

1 

40, 

4.  First  Aid 

5 

1.  Elevation 

20 

1 

F    Water  Supply  System 

1 

50 

2.  Nature  of  Soil 

20 

1 

i 

1,  Drinking 

20| 

1 

C  Size.  Form  and  Use 

45 

45 

2.  Washing 

15' 

1 

D.  Flagpole 

10 

10 

3.  Bathing 

3| 

200' 

4.  Hot  and  Cold 

.0| 

! 

A.  Placement 

40 

0.  Toilet  Systems 

1 

60 

25 

I    Placement 

'*l 

1 

2.  Position  on  Site 

.5 

1 

2    Fixtures 

•oj 

1 

90 

3,  Adequacy 

10 

I.  Type 

20 

4    Seclu=iion,  Sanitat'n  and  Condifi 

25 

2.  Material 

10 

IV    Class  Rooms 

225 

3.  Height 

loi 

1 

A.  Arrangement 

lOi 

10 

4.  Roof 

5 

B.  Construcuon  and  Fmish 

80 

S.  FoundatJoo 

10 

1    Size 

20 

6.  WaUs 

>0 

2    Shape 

IS 

7.  Entrantx9 

10  1 

3.  Floors 

10 

8.  Aesthetic  BaUnee 

Jl 

1 

4.  Walls 

5 

9   Condition 

10  1 

1 

5    Doora 

i 

C.  Internal  Structure 

70 

"""1 

6.  Closets 

y, 

i 

1.  Stairways  and  Corridore 

25 

7.  Blackb-^ards  and  Bulletin  Board; 

is' 

' 

2.  Baserneot 

301 

8    Color  Scheme 

5 

3.  Color  Scheme 

lo' 

C.  lUummation 

1 

60 

4.  Attic 

5 

i 

1    Glass  Area 

3<i 

( 
250 

2    Window  placement 

j»: 

A.  Heating  and  Ventilation 

1 

55 

3.  Shades 

10 

1 

1.  Kind 

20 

1 

D    Cloakrooms  and  Wardrobes 

20 

20 

2.  Instanation  and  Distribution 

10 

1 

E.  Equipment 

55. 

15' 

i 

1 

\.  Seats  and  Desks 

30' 

4.  Fans  and  Motors 

5 

1 

1 

2.  Teachers'  Desks 

s!- 

1 
I 

5    Temperature  Control 

5 

1 

3,  Other  Equipment 

20 

B.  Fire  Protection 

20 

V.  Special  Rooms 

165  1 

1.  Apparatus 

5; 

i 

1 

A.  Rooms  for  General  Use 

«"! 

2.  Fireproofness 

S 

1 

I 

I.  Play  Room 

20' 

3.  Eitits 

5 

1 

2.  Community  Room 

30l 

4.  Light  Installation 

5' 

3.  Library 

20; 

C.  Cleaning  System 

1 

2S 

4.  Lunch  Room 

10' 

1.  Kind  and  Equipment 

10 

I 

B    Officials'  ConsuJtation  Room 

20 

20 

2.  Efficiency 

1! 

1 

C.  Other  Special  Service  Rooms 

65 

[ 

D.  Artificial  Liehtiog 

20 

1.  Industrial  Arts 

30 : 

1 

1    Gas  or  Electricity 

5 

2.  Household  Arts 

301 

1 

2.  Outlets  and  Fixtims 

10 ! 

3.  Pud  Room 

5 

3.  Illumination 

5l 



Totals 

1000 

1000 

1000 

iDnroctlona  for  t,'aine  C&rd  —  11)  Bails  (or  Scorlne.  tOOO  points  (Zi  Por  sloi 
BlleO  out,  tlif  second  am)  rhlrd  to  b«  511k1  on(  at  leisure  J!  Wdere  ci^dil  Is  aJ.< 
credit.  A'l  sco-fi  •n  -all  "j?  recordi^  on  the  miis  5)  fbe  staodardi  oulllo»d  Id  ( 
tlODs  Teachers  CoUtrfe.  Cclumbla  UnlverjitT    N'  Y 


iil.iwed  WhUe  acmally  at  wort  oo  a  boJdJng  oniT  ll»  ft"'  need  b« 
B  Qot  pri-st-Qt  and  not  oeed'^d  In  a  Oulldiag  draw  a  clrcU  •nruod  locb 
r  Ea^eltiardl  Score  Card  (or  Roral  School  HaUd.ors,  Bai»»o  ol  PobUc*- 


86 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 


a 

o 

a 

< 
O 

a 
o 
o 

m 

c 
z 


s      ^ 


o 

K 

>j 

t/j 

H-t 

M 

P 

H 

m 

1-5 

>j 

^ 

o 

a 

o 

^ 

o 

ao 

>:] 

2 

P 

6 

Bj 

H 

H 

Q 

tj 

K 

« 

< 

H 

> 

S 

1— 1 

H 

^ 

yA 

O 

CW 

X 

tn 

2 
O 

< 

K 

H 

a 

E- 

C 

< 

2 

1-5 

o 

o 
o 

a 

n 

o 
a 

O 
< 

m 

o 
o 

< 

z 


cc 


1-3 

m 

O 
O 

w 

o 

02 


00  lo  X  ^.  o 

to   »    M    M    U5 

■*  TO  «  ro  M 

'5 

5^ 

CO  IC  t^  C)  M 
CO   t-H 

C 

O  M   M    (N   CO 

sq 

00    ^   O   O   O 

'^ 

•O   OO   Tt<   O   o 

S 

e 
^ 

t^  00  o  o  c^ 

Tf    (M    O    C:    — 

fcl 

05    O   O   1-0    o 

CO    CO    CO    C^l    CO 

Q 

o  o  «  in  lo 

O 

LO    O    Ol    lO    t^ 

CO  Tf  CO  c^i  c^i 

ftl 

X  ■*  LO  o  o 
lO    'f    CO    'I"    M- 

'^ 

O     Tf     TJ<     1-     O 

5 

s 

-1  o  o  o  o 

<N   t^   t^   O   O 

CS 

00  t^  lO  ■*  T^ 

C^    .-H    rt    cq    IM 

!». 

lO   00    O   -^   U5 

Kl 

"5   U5    00   CO   00 

C) 

-^    O   CD   CO    O 

l-H     »— ( 

o 

00  00  t^  o  in 

03 

03  M  in  CO  CO 

"^ 

m  CO  c:  o  uo 

CO    (N    "   CO    IM 

>~1 

s 

1 

o  CO  -ji  in  o 

O    O   00   t-   t^ 

»— I      I-H 

O 

— '  1^  c;  00  in 

CO    M    rt 

05 

■*  00'  r~  t^  CO 
•<i-  ■*  CO  CO  Tf 

'^ 

in  cc  X'  o  c^ 

(N    01    CS    CO    IN 

s 

1 

i^  o  «  o  in 
«o  CO  m  (O  h- 

C; 

M<  m  X  in  in 

o 

o  o  o  o  o 

^ 

X  o  c  o  m 
"  '-I  ^  —   cq 

-;  1 

1 

in  in  o  in  in 

CO    M    CO    CO    CO 

Slackwood 
Eldridge  Park 
Lawrcnceville 
Clarksville 
Rosedale 

C 


3 


T3 

■a 

a 

o 

a 
o 


c 

03 

to 


43 


o 
> 

'3 


■a 

3 


CS 

O 


o  c; 

u  o 

o  "= 

-w  a 

.5  -^ 

3  tH 

C  <« 

^2 

*  IS 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 


87 


A  building  scoring  between  500  and  600  may,  by  extensive  alter- 
ations and  repairs  be  raised  to  a  fairly  satisfactory  standard  of  ade- 
quacy. A  community  would  be  justified  in  thus  increasing  the  effi- 
ciency of  a  building  falling  within  this  group. 

When  a  building  scores  less  than  500  points,  the  community 
should  look  forward  immediately  towards  providing  a  better  and 
more  adequate  educational  plant.  It  is  hardly  probable  that  the 
amount  of  money  required  to  bring  this  type  of  building  up  to  a 
point  of  adequacy  would  be  a  justifiable  expenditure  for  the  com- 
munity. 

In  Chart  No.  17  are  shown  graphically  the  scores  allotted  to 
the  Lawrence  Township  buildings.  All  of  the  buildings  scored  less 
than  500  points,  with  Slackwood  falling  within  the  450  to  500  point 
group.  Slackwood's  score  falls  lower  than  500  because  of  the  in- 
adequacy of  the  old  part  of  the  building.  If  the  new  part  were  scored 
alone,  it  would  score  considerably  above  500  points.     When  one  con- 

Chart  ISo.  17. 


1000       468       385      350      328       327 
Per-     Slack-  Eld-    Rose-  Law-  Clarks- 
fect       wood  ridge     dale  rence-     ville 

ville 

Total  Scores  Allotted  the  Five  Buildings  of  La-wrence  Township  on   the 
Strayer-Engelhardt  Score  Card  for  Rural  School  Buildings. 


88  Survey  of  Public  School  System 

siders  that  these  scores  consolidate  the  judgment  of  three  judges 
concerning  the  adequacy  of  the  school  buildings,  it  is  clear  that  the 
citizens  of  Lawrence  Township  should  take  action  to  develop  more 
adequately  its  physical  plant.  Since  the  three  largest  school  build- 
ings are  also  overcrowded,  the  opportune  moment  has  come  for  the 
consideration  of  a  school  building  development  which  will  satisfy  the 
needs  of  the  community  ten  and  fifteen  years  from  now  as  far  as  such 
needs  may  at  present  be  anticipated. 

Unfortunately,  in  the  planning  of  the  Eldridge  Park  and  Law- 
renceville  schools,  no  thought  was  given  to  the  need  for  future  ex- 
tensions of  the  buildings  to  provide  for  increases  in  enrolment.  There 
is  little  possibility  of  extending  these  plants  today  at  a  reasonable  cost 
and  in  such  a  way  as  to  develop  a  school  plant  which  will  be  satisfac- 
tory ten  years  from  today.  It  has  been  pointed  out  that  Lawrence 
Township  is  a  growing  community  and  will  continue  to  grow.  It  is 
possible  at  this  time  to  anticipate  with  considerable  degree  of  cer- 
tainty the  school  building  needs  of  Lawrence  Township  over  the  next 
decade  or  more.  The  Board  of  Education  w^ill  be  accepting  its  re- 
sponsibility when  it  plans  the  expenditure  of  any  money  entrusted  to 
it  for  school  building  purposes  with  this  extended  program  in  mind. 
The  present  undesirable  location  of  the  school  building  sites  of  El- 
dridge Park  and  Lawrenceville,  the  impossibility  of  making  additions 
without  excessive  cost,  the  primitive  nature  of  certain  service  pro- 
visions, the  inadequacy  of  the  natural  lighting  and  the  almost  com- 
plete lack  of  fire  protection,  indicate  that  the  future  was  not  taken 
sufficiently  into  consideration  when  the  present  buildings  were 
planned. 

,,  ,  ,  r,  •,]•  As  both  the  Eldridge  Park  and  Lawrenceville 
School  nuilain?        1,1,        •  r  ■  ,  1    •      1       1      ,      • 

_,.  schools   develop   mto  fairly   good-sized   schools,   it 

will  be  found  necessary  to  have  larger  play  areas 
than  are  at  present  available.  It  will  be  exceedingly  unwise  to  con- 
centrate a  large  group  of  children  at  either  one  of  these  schools  and 
fail  to  provide  a  play  area  of  at  least  200  square  feet  per  pupil.  With 
the  present  enrolment,  the  playground  areas  are  136  square  feet  per 
pupil  for  the  Eldridge  Park  School  and  76  square  feet  for  the  Law- 
renceville school.  Any  addition  to  the  buildings  on  the  present  sites 
would  reduce  these  playgrounds  to  a  very  undesirable  point. 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey  89 

TABLE  XLV 

Playground — Pupil  Enrolment  Basis 

(Enrolment  Figures,  January  1922) 

Showing  Area  in  Square  Feet  of  Open  Space  and  Playground  and  Area  in  Square 
Feet  Per  Pupil  Enrolment  of  Open  Space  and  Playground  and  Amount 

of  Playground  Equipment 

Lawrence  Township 


Area  in  sq.ft. 

Jan- 

per pupil 

Area  in  Square  Feet  of 

uary 

enrolled 

Play- 

School 

1922 

ground 

Pupils 

Equip- 

Total 

Build- 

Optn 

Play- 

En- 

Of 

Of 

ment 

Site 

ings 

Space 

grounds 

rolled 

Open 
Space 

Play- 
ground 

Slackwood 

58,500 

6,164 

52,336 

42,900 

317 

165 

135 

None 

Eldridge  Park 

33,350 

3,540 

29,810 

25,000 

183 

162 

136 

None 

3 
pieces 

Lawrenceville 

36,100 

1,980 

34,120 

*13,500 

179 

191 

76 

appa- 
ratus 

Clarksville 

13,500 

720 

12,780 

6,000 

19 

673 

317 

None 

Rosedale 

16,800 

720 

16,080 

14,000 

24 

670 

583 

1  slide 

„    ..,.  The  outstanding  faults  in  the  building  structures  are  the 

t^  combustible  nature  of  the  buildings,  the  lack  of  adequate 

exits  in  case  of  fire  in  the  Eldridge  Park  building,  the 
poor  planning  of  classrooms,  corridors  and  stairways,  failure  to  isolate 
the  heating  plant  from  the  rest  of  the  building  by  fireproof  partitions, 
the  lack  of  special  rooms  for  the  purpose  of  promoting  the  special 
activity  program  of  the  school,  the  inadequate  natural  lighting  and 
the  faulty  shape  of  classrooms  which  are  planned  on  a  wrong  axis, 
the  primitive  toilet  provisions  and  the  lack  of  adequate  artificial 
lighting.  In  any  new  construction,  the  Board  of  Education  should 
require  close  adherence  to  the  most  acceptable  standards  of  school 
building  construction.  It  is  sincerely  hoped  that  no  efi^ort  will  be 
made  to  build  additions  to  the  present  school  structures  and  to  dupli- 
cate the  construction  faults  which-are  ro  outstanding  in  the  present 
buildings. 

*Not  including  space  across  road. 


90  Survey  of  Public  School  System 


Decoration 
and  Cleaning 


Too  little  attention  has  been  directed  to  the  decora- 
tion of  classrooms  and  corridors  in  the  school  build- 
ings. The  majority  of  school  rooms  are  uninviting 
and  indicate  the  failure  to  develop  the  proper  surroundings  for  the 
child  during  his  learning  period.  Particularly  objectionable  is  the 
decoration  in  the  old  section  of  the  Slackwood  School.  The  class- 
rooms, corridors  and  stairways  of  the  three  larger  school  buildings  in 
Lawrence  Township  are  in  such  condition  as  to  indicate  that  a  very 
inadequate  program  of  cleaning  had  been  developed.  It  is  surprising 
to  find  that  so  little  care  had  been  paid  to  good  school-housekeeping. 
The  two  one-room  schools  stood  out  in  direct  contrast  to  the  three 
larger  schools  in  this  respect.  The  program  for  janitorial  service  in 
the  last  three  schools  left  much  to  be  desired.  The  buildings  and 
grounds  may  fail  in  many  respects  in  meeting  modern  standards,  but 
the  school  buildings  can  at  least  be  clean  at  all  times  and  fit  for  occu- 
pancy by  children. 

In    even    a    four- room    school,    it   seems  most    un- 
Care  of  the  desirable    to    permit  janitors  to  leave   the   building 

Heating  Plant  when  fires  are  on  and  when  school  is  in  session. 
This  is  the  more  undesirable  in  Lawrence  Town- 
ship because  of  the  non-fireproof  nature  of  the  school  buildings.  Ap- 
parently the  practice  of  leaving  the  building  has  been  followed  by 
the  janitors.  The  breakdown  in  the  heating  plant  of  the  Eldridge 
Park  School,  necessitating  the  closing  of  school  for  a  period  of  time 
and  the  purchase  of  new  heating  equipment,  without  doubt  resulted 
from  this  practice.  There  is  no  evidence  that  the  responsibility 
for  directing  the  janitors  has  been  assumed  by  the  proper  officer. 
Apparently,  janitors  are  allowed  to  follow  their  own  desires  in  the 
care  of  their  schools,  and  are  not  required  to  pursue  a  program 
which  best  meets  the  local  school  requirements. 

^,  ,     In  manv  respects,  the  classrooms  of  the  new  Slack- 

Liassrooms  and  ,     '  ,.  .  .  .  .  i  •       , 

r.      ■  wood  addition  are  quite  satisfactory  and  m  sharp 

contrast  to  the  classrooms  of  the  other  schools.  In 
all  new  construction,  it  will  be  desirable  to  light  the  classrooms  from 
one  side  only  instead  of  from  two  sides  as  has  been  done  in  the  El- 
dridge Park  and  Lawrenceville  schools  and  to  adhere  to  the  other 
standards  of  size,  shape,  heights  of  blackboards,  classroom  decora- 


Lawrence  Toivnship,  New  Jersey 


91 


tion,  artificial  lighting,  cloakroom  provisions  and  the  like  which  are 
to  be  found  in  the  Strayer-Engelhardt  Bulletin  for  Rural  Schools.* 

The  utilization  of  the  playroom  provided  in  the  Slackwood 
School  for  the  purpose  of  storing  material  used  in  the  summer  time 
for  other  community  purposes  is  an  indication  that  the  proper  use  is 
not  being  made  of  the  school  plant  and  that  apparently  the  school 
program  is  not  directed  to  a  point  where  a  playroom  can  fill  any  defi- 
nite need.  The  special  room  provisions  in  the  Lawrence  Township 
schools  are  exceedingly  meagre.  In  this  respect,  Lawrence  Township 
compares  most  unfavorably  with  other  progressive  communities  in 
New  Jersey. 

In  relieving  the  present  crowded  conditions,  the  Board  of  Edu- 
cation should  give  careful  consideration,  in  the  development  of  any 
new  plant,  to  the  inclusion  of  a  community  room,  library  facilities, 
auditorium,  indoor  play  facilities,  domestic  arts  and  manual  arts 
quarters,  and  should  also  make  provision  for  an  agricultural  or  gen- 
eral science  laboratory. 

The  School  Building  Program 

The  children  attending  the  Lawrence  Township  schools  are  dis- 
tributed among  the  grades,  according  to  reports  of  the  teachers,  as 
shown  in  Table  XLVI. 

TABLE  XLVI 

Distribution  op  Children  by  Grades  and  Schools 

Lawrence  Township 

January  1922 

Grades 


Recep- 

Schools 

tion 

I 

II 

III 

IV 

V 

VI 

VII 

VIII 

Total 

Slackwood 

34 

29 

29 

22 

45 

44 

37 

46 

24 

310 

Eldridge  Park 

42 

32 

25 

10 

31 

29 

14 

183 

Lawrenceville 

13 

17 

26 

15 

22 

26 

24 

18 

18 

179 

Rosedale 

4 

4 

7 

7 

2 

24 

Clarksville 

5 

5 

2 

7 

19 

Total 

94 

82 

89 

56 

lOS 

106 

77 

64 

43 

715** 

*Published  by  Bureau  of  Publications,  Teachers  College,  Columl)ia  University, 
New  York  City. 
**Withdrawals  excluded. 


92  Survey  of  Public  School  System 

The  pupils  who  are  being  transported  to  Slackwood  are  distrib- 
uted among  the  grades  as  follows: — 

Reception 7 

First  Grade 7 

Second    "     7 

Third      "     4 

Fourth    "     II 

Fifth       "     14 

Sixth       "     13 

Seventh  "     '.  .  .  8 

Eighth    "     7 

Total 78 

If  these  children  were  not  to  be  transported  to  Slackwood,  the 
Slackwood  enrolment  would  be  approximately  230.  This  enrolment 
could  be  adequately  cared  for  in  the  eight  rooms  of  the  Slackwood 
School,  together  with  the  normal  increase  for  another  year. 

The  number  of  children  who  now  live  in  what 
Number  of  Children  in  rn^ight  be  called  the  Clarksville  and  Bakers 
the  Clarksville  and  Basin  sections  is  approximately  97.      These 

Bakers  Basin  Sections      children    are   distributed   by   grades   as  fol- 
lows : — 

Reception 12 

First  Grade 7 

Second    "     12 

Third      "     6 

Fourth    "     18 

Fifth       "     14 

Sixth       "     13 

Seventh "     8 

Eighth    "     7 

Total 97 

T,j       „    .,,.  The  Board  of  Education  has  already  recognized  the 

i\ ezv  jjuildinzs  .  .     .  . 

need  for  planning  new  buildings.     An  architect  has 

been  engaged  and  plans  for  a  new  building  have  already  been  out- 
lined. These  plans  indicate  that  the  Board  of  Education  has 
considered  the  need  for  providing  a  modern  school  plant. 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey  93 

In  planning  new  construction,  it  is  wise  to  give  first  attention  to 
the  districts  north  of  Slackwood.     A  new  building  must  also  take  into 
consideration  the  needs  of  the  7th,  8th  and  9th  grade  children  with 
the  idea  of  beginning  the  development  of  a  junior  high  school. 
Ti^       ,         r  r      •  If  one  were  to  take  the  6th,  7th  and  8th  grade 

r\  Wtflb£T  01    I  UfllOT  .  ^   I  c 

TT-  1   c^  1      7  y-.i  ■,  1  children  of  the  lanuarv  IQ22  enrolment,  one 

High  bchooL  Lhttdren,  ,  ,  ,  '        .  ,  , 

o  7  would    secure    the    approximate    number    01 

September  ig22  1        u      u  1  j  r      •       1  , 

children  who  should  be  cared  for  m  the  7th, 

8th  and  9th  grades  in  September  1922.  These  6th,  7th  and  8th  grade 
children  are  distributed  on  Map  No.  3  according  to  their  approximate 
residences.  Of  these  children,  77  will  be  in  the  6th  grade,  64  in  the 
7th  grade  and  42  in  the  8th  grade,  if  they  are  promoted  and  continue 
in  school.  These  children  are  distributed  among  the  school  dis- 
tricts, as  follows: — ■ 

Slackwood  District  (South  of 

Shabakunk  Creek) 47 

Lawrenceville  District 48 

Eldridge  Park       "        54 

Clarksville  &  Bakers  Basin 29 

Rosedale 5 

Total  (including  the  Slackwood  Section) 183 

Total  (eliminating  Slackwood  Section) 136 

This  number  would  make  a  good  beginning  for  a  junior  high 
school.  With  the  idea  of  getting  a  school  centrally  located  for  the 
township.  It  Is  recommended  that  the  first  junior  high  school  be  de- 
veloped in  connection  with  the  Lawrenceville  district. 
r  7  D  ]■  f  ^^  present,  30  pupils  of  the  7th  and  8th  grade,  who 
P  (^,  J  J  live  In  the  Eldridge  Park  district,  are  attending  tjie 
Slackwood  School.  These  children  are  Included  in 
the  junior  high  school  summary  above.  This  would  provide  further 
relief  for  Slackwood  and  easily  make  possible  accommodations  in 
Slackwood  for  an  increase  In  the  Slackwood  School  population  for  a 
period  of  two,  three  or  more  years. 

r>  J  \T       n     jj-         If  a  new  building  were  planned  at  Lawrence- 

rroposed  New  Building       ...  ,  r     ,1     , 

^  J  .„  ville,  to  take  care  oi  all  the  present  Law- 

at  Lawrenceville  ...  .  ,,  t-tj  -j       t^     1 

renceviUe  enrolment,  all  hldndge  Park  en- 
rolment of  grades  5  to  9  for  the  year  1921,  all  Rosedale  enrolment  and 
all  Clarksville  and  Bakers  Basin  enrolment,  together  with  the  esti- 


94 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 


,n  6*h    11h    ar-d  fith    Gradrs  Ja"^o 
•      6th    G>-ads     77 
+     1th   Crade      e* 
O    8f^    G'ade       4i. 


Mai'  No.  3. 


Lawrence  Township ,  New  Jersey 


95 


mated  increase  in  enrolment  for  another  year,  the  total  number  for 
whom  accommodation  would  be  needed  in  the  new  Lawrenceville 
building  would  be  430. 

Such  a  comprehensive  plan  of  consolidation  is,  however,  not 
advisable  at  the  present  time.  The  consolidation  will  depend  upon 
the  ability  of  the  community  to  further  develop  its  building  program 
within  a  short  period  of  time. 

The  building  suggested  for  Lawrenceville  should  be  located  on  a 
ten  acre  site  at  a  point  where  the  building  will  be  easily  accessible. 
The  building  and  site  should  be  so  developed  as  to  become  a  matter 

TABLE  XLVII 

Children  to  be  Expected  at  Lawrenceville  if  Plant  is  Located  There 


Schools 

R* 

1 

2 

3 

A 

5 

6 

7 

8 

TotaU 

Lawrenceville 

Eldridge  Park 

Rosedale 

Clarksville  and  Bakers  Basin 

13 
12 

16 

4 

7 

28 

5 
12 

13 

6 
6 

22 
31 

18 

26 

24 

7 

14 

24 

16 

2 

13 

18 
22 

8 

18 

8 

7 

178 

101 

24 

97 

Totals 

25 

27 

45 

25 

71 

71 

55 

48 

33 

400 

Estimated  Increase  for  1922 

30 

Total 

430 

of  local  pride  and  satisfaction  and  an  evidence  of  community  interest 
in  education.  A  site  immediately  to  the  south  of  Lawrenceville  cen- 
ter should  be  selected,  but  care  should  be  taken  not  to  go  so  far  south 
as  to  encroach  upon  the  program  outlined  below  for  the  Eldridge  Park 
School. 

As  pointed  out  above,  provision  for  approxi- 
mately 75  children  should  be  made  by  Sep- 
tember 1922  for  those  attending  grades  I  to  6. 
In  the  very  near  future,  it  will  be  desirable  to 
plan  the  beginning  of  a  school  building  in  the  vicinity  of  Bakers  Basin. 
If  this  building  were  to  be  begun  immediately,  provision  should  be 
made  for  three  teachers  in  three  rooms.  This  building,  as  well  as  the 
building  suggested  for  the  Lawrenceville  section,  should  be  so  planned 


School  Provisions  in 
the  Clarksville  and 
Bakers  Basin  Section 


*R  stands  for  reception  grade. 


96  Svrvey  of  Public  School  System 

as  to  make  a  maximum  of  addition  possible.     The  elimination  of 

these  children  from  the  projected  Lawrenceville  School,  and  also  the 

retention  of  the  Rosedale  School  on  its  present  site  for  a  period  of  time 

would  leave  for  the  Lawrenceville  School  a  total  of  approximately  330 

children  for  whom  provision  must  be  made. 

r,.        ,  „  ,  On   the   basis   of   present   enrolment   and    a 

btze  of  Proposed  .  i-  1     •  t  -h 

-.  -11    n    ■!]■         complete  consolidation  at  Lawrenceville  as 

LazvrenceviiLe  nuiLaing  .         ,    .      r,-.  ,  ,      Arr-t/TT       .  •. 

projected    in    iable    ALVli,    the    proposed 

Lawrenceville  plant  would  require  sixteen  rooms.  This  would  per- 
mit of  growth  over  a  three  or  four  year  period  before  additions  became 
necessary.  It  would  also  provide  relief  for  any  overcrowding  in  the 
Eldridge  Park  School  during  this  period.  This  provision,  as  out- 
lined above,  will  leave  109  children  of  the  present  enrolment  at  El- 
dridge Park.  This  present  enrolment,  together  with  the  expected 
increase  of  approximately  25  pupils,  could  be  housed  in  the  Eldridge 
Park  School  for  at  least  a  year. 

Under  the  second  plan  proposed  for  the  Lawrenceville  section, 
with  the  pupils  of  Clarksville,  Bakers  Basin  and  Rosedale  eliminated, 
the  enrolment  which  will  be  left  will  require  twelve  classrooms. 
These  twelve  classrooms  will  suffice  for  a  period  of  three  or  four  years 
and  may  be  utilized  in  this  period  to  offset  any  overcrowding  occurring 
in  the  Eldridge  Park  School. 

„,     r-7  7  •  7        As   has   been   pointed  out,  the  Eldridge  Park  School 
I  he  LLdridge  ,  ...  .      ,  ...  ... 

„     7  o  7      7       cannot  be  economically  retained  as  a  basis  lor  addi- 

Fark  School         .  _,,  ,  ,         .,.      ,        t-i  1  •  1       -r.     1     1       1  1 

tions.      Ihe  portable  utilized  at  Eldridge  Park  should 

be  discarded  at  the  earliest  possible  moment.  Within  a  short  period, 
it  will  become  necessary  to  begin  a  new  school  building  in  this  section 
of  the  township.  A  large  site  of  six  to  ten  acres  should  be  procured 
for  this  purpose  and  a  modern  building  planned  which  will  provide 
for  the  needs  of  children  of  the  kindergarten  and  first  six  grades.  It 
is  most  desirable  that  a  kindergarten  be  added  in  this  section.  In 
fact,  the  reception  grade  in  all  the  three  large  districts  should  be  dis- 
placed by  a  kindergarten.  Ultimately,  this  new  Eldridge  Park 
School  may  become  a  sixteen  to  twenty  room  elementary  school,  with 
the  Lawrenceville  School  always  providing  the  arrangements  for  chil- 
dren of  the  7th,  8th  and  9th  Grades  of  this  section. 


PART  VII 

SCHOOL  COSTS 

In  Table  XLVIII  arcgiven  the  amounts  expended  by  the  Law- 
rence Township  Board  of  Education  for  all  educational  purposes 
for  the  years  1913  to  1921.  The  current  expenditures  in  this  table 
are  distributed  on  the  basis  of  administration,  instructional  costs, 
operation  of  plant,  maintenance  of  plant,  auxiliary  agencies  and  cer- 
tain items  involving  transportation.  The  grand  total  of  all  current 
expenses  has  increased  from  $15,696.,  in  191 3- 1914  to  $5 1,198.,  in  1920- 
1921,  or  226%.  During  the  same  period,  the  average  daily  attend- 
ance has  grown  from  351  to  592,  not  including  high  school  pupils,  or 
69%.  The  largest  increase  has  been  in  instructional  costs  which  have 
changed  from  $9,925.,  to  $32,146.,  or  a  total  increase  of  $22,221.  The 
increase  in  instructional  costs  over  this  period  of  years  is  nearly  half  of 
the  present  grand  total  for  current  expenses.  Another  large  increase 
is  in  tuition  fees  paid  other  districts.  For  the  one  year,  1919-1920, 
these  tuition  fees  increased  approximately  140%,  again,  no  doubt, 
largely  due  to  the  fact  that  they  involved  in  such  a  large  degree  in- 
creases in  teachers'  salaries  elsewhere. 

Chart  No.  18  shows  the  relationship  between  increases  in  costs 
and  increases  in  pupil  population  and  the  teaching  staff. 

In  Table  XLIX,  these  costs  are  distributed  on  the  basis  of  the 
number  of  children  in  average  daily  attendance  over  the  six  major 
items  of  expenditure.  In  Table  XLIX,  the  tuition  fees  and  cost  of 
transportation  for  all  high  school  and  elementary  pupils  attending 
schools  In  other  districts  are  not  Included.  Table  XLIX  should  be 
read  In  conjunction  with  Table  L.  In  the  latter  table,  the  items  of 
Table  XLIX  are  given  In  terms  of  the  percentage  which  each  of  the 
six  major  functions  of  accounting  bears  to  the  total  expenditure.. 
The  increase  in  administration,  the  fluctuation  In  instructional  costs, 
the  drop  In  cost  of  operation  and  maintenance  are  the  outstanding 
elements  in  this  table. 

„  .        For  purposes  of  comparison  with  other  communities 

Comparative        ,  •  ,    ,  ■     -,  ,      ,         ,  ,  ,  .  t 

„  which  have  similar  school  problems  to  those  of  Law- 

rence Township,  Table  LI  has  been  prepared.  The 
positions  of  the  districts  on  this  table  have  been  determined  on  the 
basis  of  the  expenditures  for  the  school  year  1920-1921.     Lawrence 


98 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 


a 
m 

a 

a 

H 

E-i 

Z 
P 

o 
O 

K 

H 
U 


1— 1 

K 

H- 1 

rn 

> 

z 

(-1 

^ 

M 

O 

w 

h:) 

« 

^ 

<l 

a 

H 

« 

H 
S 

H 

Eh 
H 

o 


-2   «=^  '-C 
o    s    ^ 

'^    S    a. 


I     =0    (a 

^    ^2^    '-^^      ^ 


s 


=0 

s 

5^ 


"s  tS  '1^ 
s~   X   -^ 


'^ 


cocO'-Hoocioias-* 


01002050000   1^    05 

0_  01_   CT)^  O    CO     ■*     OS    rH 

<o  t^  X  i-T  i-T  od~  io  >-r 

'-i'-i--iC^(M(>jfOkO 


CO    --H    GO 
(M     1— I     rH 


O    O)   (M    CO    (M 

lO    O    00    rH    05 


lO    00   ■*    CO    O'  OJ    O    GO 
<— l"*l-+IQOt--rHt^CC 

'^^  c-i^  05_  ■*_  t^  CO  1— I  00 

Co"  rjT  irf  QO"  go"  lO   of  of 

i-Mt-Hi— Ir-Hi— iC^CO-^ 


OOOOCOiOO 


GO  O  CO  CO  i-O  »0  CD  C^l 
GO  CO  "M  lO  (M  ^  lO  -^ 
CO_  O^  0_  CO_  i-H_  iM_^  CO    CO 

r-T  of  c^r  <>r  of  of  of  cd'^ 


lOooicoiiociTtico 

C01005COOOO»00 

coior-iooscocot^ 

OS  O  Ol  iCi  Ol '  iC  'f  GO 
»-0  OS  05  GO  t--  OS  1— I  05 


.2    ^ 


t^OscOcO-^OCOiO 

GOi-Hcococo-^cooi 


O 


1-H 

oi 

lO 

h-^ 

7—i 

GO 

Ol 

^ 

CO 

lO 

lO 

CO 

o 

Ol 

CO 

1— t 

1-H 

1— ( 

rt* 

"* 

o 

CD 

CO 

CO 

o 

o 

05 

CO 

lO 

t^ 

CO 

Ol 

o 

lO 

OS 

00 

1—1 

00 

.— 1 

lO 

CO 

CO 

o 

r- 

CO 

Ol 

OS 

00 

t^ 

lO 

c 

co 

lo  OS  o  ■*  ■*  CD  oa  -^ 
of  co"  co" 


OOt^t^COGOCOOlO 
COO'O'-OCOOSCO-Ti 

00'— iCDGOOSt^OOJ 
OlOOCOiOt^OSGOOl 
00   05   05  1-*^  OJ_  o^  t^   o^ 

I— I     1— I     r-T  of 


i-HiOiOCOCOCOOOS 
Tt<^CO00CO-*;DCD 

C5    Ol    ^    >-0    Ol    GO    lO    t^ 

Ttit^r^TfHoooi'rt'-* 

OO^CD^CO^-^OS^O   CO    OS 

r-T  T-T  i-T  of  of  co"  co~  co" 


00 


■^ 
-^ 


e 

«s 


t^t^O'^OSCOOCD 
Ol    CO    ^    00    GO    LO    ■*    Tt< 


UOt-Ht-hiOCOOSCOCD 
Ol^COiOOOOi— !•* 
OSCOCOOSOliOiOi-' 


05 


O   Ol    CO    CO    t^    CO    Ol 

^H       T— I       1— I       1— (       T— I       Ol       CO 


Ot^-^iOiOOOcO 
COOlGOcDOOO-^Oa 


00  Ol  t-  CO  00  Ol  CO  O 

GO  O  Ol  t^  <0  OS  iC  o 

1— ICOCOCOCOGO00O5 


TJH    lO    CO    l^    OC    C^    O    rt 

-r  7  7  -r  1 1  '^"  7 

coTfiiocor^oooio 

■— I"— I"— ii— ii— (i— (1— lOl 

0505O30S0SO5OS05 


a 

; 

o 

-*j 

3 

H 

m 

CD 

fl 

-tj 

a 

a 

3 

,a 

-)-:> 

u 

CJ 

is 

3 

a 

« 

T! 

Ol 

a 

Tl 

OJ 

S 

a; 

•n 

t— * 

<u 

cl 

u 

-^ 

a> 

o 

£3 

H 

0) 

;;; 

T3 

C 

, 

03 

a 

^ 

a 

m 

3 

0) 

o 

o 

a 

0) 

tu 

^ 

-(-> 

2 

b 

C3 

. 

a 

(1) 

-^ 

c3 

8 

3 

m 

>«-• 

c! 

<A 

a 

TS 

o 

r-f 

ni 

-M 

a 
o 

a 

3 

-3 

OJ 

Tl 

a 

rt 

-) 

cj 

^ 

-a 

- 

yj 

O) 

32 

-4-J 

-73 

3 

« 

a 

a; 

o 

^ 

0) 

a 

cc 

^ 

CS 

^ 

r^ 

<— ^ 

;-i 

C3 

O 

^ 

a 

O 

rr, 

O 

*-~» 

o 

"^ 

•^ 

u 

P5 

a 

o 

o 

^ 

i: 

-^ 
rf 

^ 

^s 

O 

03 

-a 

3 

T-l 

a 

o 

01 

c3 

a 

a 

cu 

c3 

3 

n> 

O 

^ 

o 

a 

r^ 

■1 

-M 

irf 

»* 

o 

,>H 

a 

H 

0^ 

o 

^ 

■a 

Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 


99 


Chart  No.  18 


Showing  the  Comparison  in  LawTence  Tow-nship  From  1913-1921  Between 
Expenditm-es  within  the  District  Total,  Current  Expenditures,  Average  Daily 
Attendance^within  the  District  and  Total  Average  Daily  Attendance. 


7 

6 

5 

Total  A.D.A.     * 

A.D.A.  vrithin 
the  District 

3 

0 

Z 

Total   Current 
ExFeni}lti;res 

Expenditures 
Within  the 
District 

^^ 

.-' 

y 

.-- 

-'-' 

^^-^^ 

,_  — — 

^^-''' 

^ 

• 

1 

y 

^^^ 

1 
1 

x^     . 

1 

/■ 

'     / 

I 

/ 

1         , 

/      / 

"^ — ^ 

/ 

1         / 

'      / 

1       / 

/ 

1      / 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

/ 

// 

/ 

/         / 

/ 
/ 

/ 

/ 
/         / 
/         / 

' 

/         / 
/         / 
/         / 

,^' 

y 

y 

^ 

y 

^ 

/ 

^ 

1913-14     14-15     15-16     16-17     17-18     18-19     19-20     20-21 


100 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 


Township  holds  eighth  place  in  this  group,  with  an  expenditure  of 
^76.19  per  pupil  in  average  daily  attendance.  Morris  Township 
expends  ^135.  per  pupil,  while  Clementon  Township  spends  $14.  less 
than  Lawrence  Township.  The  rank  which  Lawrence  Township  has 
held  in  this  group  over  a  period  of  the  last  six  years  is  clearly  shown 
in  Chart  No.  19.  Lawrence  Township  has  dropped  from  rank  six  to 
rank  eight  over  this  period. 

TABLE  XLIX 

Cost  of  Elementary  Education  Per  Pupil  in  Lawrence  Township  Based 

ON  Average  Daily  Attendance 


Average 

A  uxili- 

Year 

Daily 

Admin- 

Instruc- 

Opera- 

Main- 

ary 

Miscel- 

Total 

Attend- 

istra- 

tion 

tion  of 

tenance 

Agenc- 

laneous 

Expend- 

ance 

tion 

Plant 

of  Plant 

ies 

itures 

1913-14 

351 

.54 

28.27 

5.27 

2.36 

1.60 

.18 

38.22 

1914-15 

421 

.72 

24.50 

3.97 

2.33 

2.21 

.12 

33.84 

1915-16 

401  . 

.82 

30.84 

4.7 

2.34 

1.48 

.14 

39.77 

1916-17 

468 

.80 

29.81 

5.23 

2.48 

1.04 

.14 

39.50 

1917-18 

481 

1.37 

27.62 

6.20 

2.66 

.98 

.21 

39.04 

1918-19 

513 

1.74 

34.13 

5.90 

2.14 

5.18 

.      .25 

49.34 

1919-20 

554 

1.54 

42.44 

6.04 

1.41 

5.78 

.87 

58.08 

1920-21 

592 

1.52 

54.30 

6.67 

3.42 

5.80 

.70 

72.41 

Tuiton  fees  and  cost  of  transportation  for  all  elementary  and  high  school  pupils 
attending  school  in  other  districts  are  not  included  in  this  table. 


TABLE  L 

Percentage  of  Current  Expenditures  for  the  Various  Distributions  of 
Cost  in  L.\avrence  Township  for  Eight  Years 


Mainte- 

Year 

Adminis- 

Instruction 

Operation 

nance  of 

Auxiliary 

Miscel- 

tration 

of  Plant 

Plant 

Agencies 

laneous 

1913-14 

1.4 

73.9 

13.8 

6.1 

4.2 

.6 

1914-15 

2.1 

72.4 

11.7 

6.9 

6.5 

.4 

1915-16 

2.0 

77.5 

10.5 

5.9 

3.7 

.4 

1916-17 

2.0 

75.5 

13.2 

6.3 

2.6 

.4 

1917-18 

3.5 

70.8 

15.9 

6.8 

2.5 

.5 

1918-19 

3.5 

09.3 

12.0 

4.3 

10.4 

.5 

1919-20 

2.6 

73.1 

10.4 

2.4 

10.0 

1.5 

1920-21 

2.1 

75.0 

9.3 

4.7 

8.0 

1.0 

Lawrence  Township,  Neiv  Jersey 


101 


In  Table  LI  and  Chart  No.  19,  the  tuition  fees  and  cost  for  trans- 
portation for  pupils  attending  schools  in  other  districts  have  been 
included. 

TABLE  LI 

Cost  of  Education 

Current  Expenditures  Per  Pupil  in  Average  Daily  Attendance  in  Lawrence  and 
Ten  Other  Townships  in  New  Jersey  Plus  the  Cost  of  Those  Living  in  the 
District  but  Attending  School  in  Other  Districts 


Toumships 

1915-16 

1916-17 

1917-18 

1918-19 

1919-20 

1930-21 

Morris 

.$94.13 

$93.60 

$103.32 

$108.45 

$128.79 

$135.33 

Teaneck 

47.88 

57.58 

64.. 52 

61.05 

92.33 

103.00 

Ewing 

52.40 

53.60 

52.72 

61.25 

70.44 

95.62 

Passaic 

58.52 

58.53 

64.81 

64.12 

73.32 

95.15 

Princeton 

38.48 

36.44 

59.44 

58.97 

80.74 

94.16 

Hohokus 

49.57 

.52.28 

48.85 

64.84 

73.95 

82.48 

Beverly 

39.47 

38.09 

40.43 

49.18 

61.41 

77.65 

LAWRENCE 

41.26 

42.05 

40.51 

51.60 

59.07 

76.19 

Gloucester 

.35.. 58 

43.73 

45.91 

51.49 

59.18 

64.25 

Buena  Vista 

41.04 

.38.83 

44.30 

45.70 

52.42 

63.37 

Clementon 

33.49 

39.33 

37.28 

.59.04 

52.60 

62.25 

This  table  includes  expenditures  for  transportation  and  tuition  for  all  elemen- 
tary and  high  school  pupils  attending  school  in  other  districts. 


In  Table  LII,  the  cost  of  elementary  schools  is  given  on  a  unit 
basis.  Here  are  recorded  the  total  current  expenditures  per  pupil  for 
eight  years  in  Lawrence  and  ten  other  townships,  with  the  cost  based 
on  average  daily  attendance.  In  this  case,  tuition  fees  and  cost  of 
transportation  for  all  elementary  and  high  school  pupils  attending 
school  in  other  districts  are  not  included.  When  these  costs  for  ele- 
mentary schools  only  are  taken  into  consideration,  Lawrence  Town- 
ship holds  a  position  which  has  varied  from  eighth  place  to  seventh 
place  over  the  period  1913-1921,  having  dropped  to  ninth  place  in 
1917-1918,  as  shown  in  Chart  No.  20. 


102 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 


Chart  No.  19 
Chart  Showing  the  Rankings  for  Six  Years  of  Lawrence  and  Ten  other  New- 
Jersey  Townships  on  the  Basis  of  Current  Expenditures  for  All  School  Purposes 
Per  Pupil  in  Average  Daily  Attendance. 

Rank  in    1915-    1916-    1917-    1918-    1919-     1920 
Group     1916     1917     1918     1919     1929      1921 

® ® ® ® ® ® 


4 
6 
6 
T 

e 

9 

10 


B    —  Beverly  G  — Gloucester 

BY—  Buena  Vista  H —  Hohokus 

C   —  Clementon  L  — Lawrence 

E   —  Ewing  M —  Morris 


PA  —  Passaic 
PR  —  Princeton 
T     —  Teaneck 


TABLE  LII 

Cost  of  Elementary  Schools 

Total  Current  Expenditures  Per  Pupil  for  Eight  Years  in  LawTence  and^Ten 

Other  ToAvnships  in  New  Jersey  Based  on  Average  Daily  Attendance 


1913- 

1914- 

1915- 

1916- 

1917- 

1918- 

1919- 

1920-  ^ 

Townships 

1914 

1915 

1916 

1917 

1918 

1919 

1920 

1921 

]\1  orris 

$92.33 

$88.68 

$103.74 

$101 . 14 

$114.88 

.$115.89 

.$140.13 

$146.46 

Princeton 

54.88 

39.76 

58.49 

50.35 

72.18 

71.72 

99.18 

113.11 

Teaneck 

48.55 

47.22 

52.89 

55.37 

63.77 

58.82 

93.18 

101.99 

Passaic 

59.32 

55.10 

56.07 

57.85 

64.34 

65.50 

77.45 

92.42 

Ewing 

40.70 

44.18 

53.57 

50.65 

51.15 

57.05 

67.90 

89.87 

Hohokus 

48.49 

44.88 

46.68 

49.79 

45.78 

61.96 

72.21 

80.88 

LAWRENCE 

38.23 

33.84 

39.76 

39.51 

39.04 

49.34 

58.08 

72.41 

Beverly 

36.46 

33.58 

36.23 

34.72 

36.77 

44.93 

56.29 

70.16 

Clementon 

29.64 

27.90 

32.21 

38.49 

37.44 

60.70 

53.91 

63.05 

Buena  Vista 

33.33. 

32.42 

39.75 

37.22 

44.30 

44.82 

51.55 

60.58 

Gloucester 

39.99 

37.39 

31.22 

43.62 

42.74 

48.40 

54.59 

60.28 

Median 

Township 

40.70 

39.76 

46.68 

49.79 

45.78 

*58.82 

67.90 

80.88 

Tuition  fees  and  cost  of  transportation  for  all  elementary  and  high  school 
pupils  attending  school  in  other  districts  are  not  included  in  thLs  table. 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 
Chart  No.  20. 


103 


Chart  showing  the  Rankings  for  Eight  Years  of  LaAATence  and  Ten'Other 
Townships  in  New  Jersey  on  the  Basis  of  Expenditures  in  the  Elementary  Schools 
Per  Pupil  in  Average  Daily  Attendance. 

Rant  in  1913-   1914-   1915-   1916-   1917-   191S-   1919-   1920- 
Group  1914    191.5    1916    1917    1918    1919    1920    1921 

® ® © ® ® ® ® © 


u 


B   —  Beverly  G  —  Gloucester 

BV—  Buena  Vista  H  —  Hohokus 

C   —  Clementon  L  —  LawTence 

E   —  Ewing  M  —  Morris 


PA  —  Passaic 
PR  —  Princeton 
T     —  Teaneck 


104 


Survey  of  Public  School  Syste7n 


In  Table  LIII  are  given  the  costs  for  elementary  schools  for  Law- 
rence and  ten  other  townships,  based  on  average  daily  attendance, 
with  the  cost  divided  among  the  various  functions  of  accounting. 
Lawrence  Township  ranks  sixth  among  the  group  in  costs  for  admin- 
istration, fifth  in  instructional  costs,  tenth  in  operating  costs,  ninth 
in  costs  of  maintenance  of  plant  and  fifth  in  costs  for  auxiliary  agen- 
cies. 

TABLE  LIII 

Cost  of  Elementary  Schools  for  1920-1921 

Current  Expenditures  Per  Pupil  of  LawTence  and  Ten  Other  Townships  in   New- 
Jersey  Based  on  Average  Daily  Attendance 


Opera- 

Mainte- 

Auxili- 

Miscel- 

Total 

Townships 

Admin- 
istration 

Instruc- 
tion 

tion  of 
Plant 

nance  of 
Plant 

ary  Agen- 
cies 

laneous 

Expendi- 
tures 

Morris 

Morri-i  Co. 
Princeton 

$2.02 

.$98.27 

.$21.17 

,$7.59 

$16.17 

$1.24 

$146.46 

Mercer  Co. 

3.19 

53.46 

12.59 

6.06 

37.40 

.41 

113.11 

Teaneck 

Bergen  Co. 

1.30 

80.07 

14.66 

4.01 

1.48 

.47 

101.99 

Passaic 

Morris  Co. 

2.82 

58.39 

10.28 

10.95 

8.81 

1.17 

92.42 

Ewing 
Mercer  Co. 

2.24 

51.76 

17.21 

7.70 

10.96 

.00 

89.87 

Hohokus 

Bergen  Co. 

1.53 

61.28 

11.31 

4.30 

1.57 

.09 

80.88 

LAWRENCE 

Mercer  Co. 

1.52 

54.30 

6.67 

3.42 

5.80 

.70 

72.41 

Beverly 
Burlington  Co. 
Clementon 

.99 

52.66 

8.69 

1.05 

2.51 

4.66 

70.16 

Camden  Co. 

1.10 

43.40 

9.62 

4.41 

3.25 

1.28 

63.05 

Buena  Vista 

Atlantic  Co. 
Gloucester 

1.45 

43.91 

5.61 

4.68 

4.61 

.32 

60.58 

Camden  Co. 

1.70 

47.28 

8.74 

1 .  67 

.89 

.00 

eo.28 

Tuition  fees  and  cost  of  transportation  for  all  elerrentary  and   high   school 
pupils  attending  schools  in  other  districts  are  not  included  in  this  table. 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey  105 

Table  LIV  and  Chart  No.  21  show  the  variations  in  costs  for  in- 
struction only  for  each  of  these  townships  lor  the  period  1913-1921. 
The  figures  and  ranks  in  this  table  and  chart  are  based  upon  cost  per 
pupil  in  average  daily  attendance.  Percentages  of  increase  over  the 
year  1913-1914  are  as  follows: — 

Morris     Township 92% 

Teaneck  "        146% 

Hohokus  "       79-5% 

Passaic  "        34-9% 

Lawrence  "        92 . 1% 

Princeton  "        42.8% 

Beverly  "        104.4% 

Ewing  "        86.2% 

Gloucester  "        64. 1% 

Buena  Vista  "        67.8% 

Clementon  "        99-6% 


Lawrence  Township  has  been  at  the  median  point  in  this  distri- 
bution for  one  year,  namely  1919-1920,  but  is  below  the  median  in 
each  other  year.  Lawrence  Township's  percentage  of  increase  is 
92.1%. 

TABLE  LIV 
Cost  of  Instruction 

Expenditures  for  Instruction  Per  Pupil  in  Lawrence  and  Ten  Other  Townships 
in  New  Jersey  for  Eight  Years  Based  on  Average  Daily  Attendance 


Townships 

1913-U 

1914-15 

1915-16 

1916-17 

1917-18 

1918-19 

1919-20 

1920-21 

Morris 

$51.25 

$34.74 

$66.14 

$63.87 

$72.04 

$77.30 

$92.05 

.$98.27 

Teaneck 

32.51 

29.45 

35.56 

39.21 

41.85 

45.58 

61.85 

80.07 

Hohokus 

34.15 

31.15 

32.06 

32.29 

32.23 

37.62 

44.29 

61.28 

Passaic 

43.30 

36.64 

38.22 

38.13 

38.42 

40.65 

50.31 

58.39 

Lawrence 

28.28 

24.50 

30.85 

29.82 

27.62 

34.13 

42.44 

54.30 

Princeton 

37.43 

27.63 

40.25 

37.79 

.34.86 

30.64 

42.37 

53.46 

Beverly 

25.56 

28.57 

27.94 

28.24 

28.63 

34.42 

43.62 

52.26 

Ewing 

27.83 

27.41 

32.65 

28.85 

29. 80 

30.89 

39.17 

51.76 

Gloucester 

29.40 

25.90 

24.70 

29.43 

33.69 

37.01 

41.65 

47.28 

Buena  Vista 

26.17 

26.20 

30.95 

30.66 

33.71 

35.64 

38.84 

43.91 

Clementon 

21.75 

20.87 

22.92 

28.13 

26.51 

42.. 52 

34.45 

43.40 

Median 

Township 

29.40 

27.63 

32.06 

30.66 

33.69 

37.01 

42.44 

53.46 

106  Survey  of  Public  School  System 

Ch.\rt  No.  21 

Chart  Showing  the  Ranking  for  Eight  Years  of  La^\Tence  and  Ten  Other 
To\\-nships  i  n  Xew  Jersey  on  the  Basis  of  Expenditures  For  Instruction  Per  Pupil 
in  Average  Daily  Attendance. 

Rank  in  1913-   1914-   1915-   1916-   1917-  1918-   1919-   1920 
Group   1914    1915    1916    1917    1918   1919    1920    1921 

J    ® © ® ® ® ® ® © 


B   —  Beverly  G  —  Gloucester  PA  —  Passaic 

BV —  Buena  Vista  H  —  Hohokus  PR  —  Princeton 

C   —  Clementon  L  —  Lawrence  T      —  Teaneck 

E   —  Ewing  M  —  Morris 

In  Tables  LV  and  LVI  will  be  found  the  per  pupil  expenditure 
for  administration  and  for  operation  and  maintenance  of  plant  for 
each  of  the  eleven  townships  over  the  period  1913-1921. 

In  the  cost  of  administration,  Lawrence  Township  holds  a  posi- 
tion which  is  low.  This  is  desirable,  providing  the  problems  of  ad- 
ministration are  being  carefully  and  thoroughly  handled. 

In  costs  of  operation  and  maintenance,  Lawrence  Township  also 
holds  a  position  which  is  low.  If  Lawrence  Township  maintained  and 
operated  their  school  buildings  on  an  efficient  basis,  these  low  costs 
would  be  satisfying.  It  has,  however,  been  pointed  out  that  the 
standards  of  operation  and  maintenance  for  Lawrence  Township  have 
been  exceedingly  low.  It  is  gratifying  to  discover  that  costs  have 
been  no  higher  with  the  standards  that  have  been  maintained. 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey  107 

TABLE  LV 

Cost  of  Administration 

Expenditures  Per  Pupil  for  Administration  in  Lawrence  and  Ten  Other  Townships 
in  New  Jersey  for  Eight  Years  Based  on  Average  Daily  Attendance 


Townships 

1913-14 

1914-15 

1915-16 

1916-17 

1917-18 

1918-19 

1919-20 

1920-21 

Princeton 

$  .95 

$1.42 

SI.  39 

$2.21 

$1.47 

$4.38 

$3.63 

$3.19 

Passaic 

1.97 

2.16 

1.42 

2.21 

1.98 

2.46 

2.30 

2.82 

Ewing 

.91 

.87 

1.03 

1.33 

1.12 

1.70 

2.04 

2.24 

Morris 

2.28 

2.65 

2.42 

4.23 

3.10 

2.06 

2.14 

2.02 

Gloucester 

1.93 

2.61 

1.53 

.43 

1.65 

1.53 

1.61 

1.70 

Hohokus 

1.13 

1.46 

1.55 

1.69 

1.74 

2.39 

2.29 

1.53 

Lawrence 

.72 

.54 

.82 

.80 

1.37 

1.74 

1.54 

1.52 

Buena  Vista 

.93 

.78 

.85 

1.10 

1.20 

1.23 

1.06 

1.45 

Teaneck 

1.75 

1.70 

1.73 

1.55 

1.65 

1.57 

1.65 

1.30 

Clementon 

.65 

.79 

1.05 

1.32 

1.46 

2.09 

1.67 

1.10 

Beverly 

.74 

.48 

.67 

.49 

.67 

1.26 

.95 

.99 

TABLE  LVI 

Cost  of  Operation  and  Maintenance  of  Pl.\nt 

Expenditures  Per  Pupil  for  Operation  and  Maintenance  of  Plant  in  LawTence 
and  Ten  Other  Townships  in  Xew  Jersey  for  Eight  Years  Based  on 

Average  Daily  Attendance 


Townships 

1913-14 

1914-15 

1915-16 

1916-17 

1917-18 

1918-19 

1919-20 

1920-21 

Morris 

$17.21 

$14.24 

$17.50 

$17.54 

$23.53 

.$20.24 

$27.72 

.$28.76 

Ewing 

6.42 

6.93 

8.66 

10.51 

9.35 

14.39 

14.86 

24.91 

Passaic 

5.90 

7.62 

7.86 

8.96 

9.96 

10.13 

12.12 

21.23 

Teaneck 

11.26 

11.09 

11.02 

11.48 

10.98 

9.98 

15.38 

18.67 

Princeton 

12.52 

8.85 

13.34 

6.39 

5.50 

7.60 

18.86 

18.65 

Hohokus 

11.89 

10.61 

10.29 

13.00 

8.92 

16.72 

17.14 

15.61 

Clementon 

4.75 

4.84 

5.22 

7.23 

7.81 

11.88 

14.45 

14.03 

Gloucester 

6.63 

6.28 

3.29 

12.29 

6.58 

9.08 

10.04 

10.41 

Buena  Vista 

2.75 

2.69 

4.67 

2.63 

5.57 

4.00 

6.33 

10.29 

Lawrence 

7.63 

6.29 

6.51 

7.71 

8.88 

8.04 

7.45 

10.09 

Beverly 

9.97 

4.33 

7.34 

5.90 

6.02 

9.07 

10.18 

9.74 

In  Table  LVH  are  shown  the  variations  in  costs  for  tuition  only 
in  the  present  schools  of  Lawrence  Township.  Based  on  average 
daily  attendance,  the  Clarksville  cost  per  pupil  is  $30.  more  than  the 


108 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 


Slackwood  cost,  or  about  70%  more  than  the  Slackwood  cost.  The 
Rosedale  cost  is  only  $j.oo  less  than  the  Clarksville.  The  costs  in 
Lawrenceville,  Eldridge  Park  and  Slackwood  are  about  the  same. 

TABLE  LVII 

Cost  for  Salaries  of  Teachers 

Expenditures  Per  Pupil  for  Teachers  Salaries  in  the  Schools  of  Lawrence  Township 
for  the  Year  1920-1921  Based  on  Average  Daily  Attendance 


Number  of 

A  verage 

Cost  Based 

Schools 

Rooms  in 

Daily 

Actual 

on  Average 

School 

A  ttendance 

Cost 

Salaries 

Clarksville 

• 

1 

19 

$73.68 

$70.04 

Rosedale 

1 

21 

66.67 

64.04 

Lawrenceville 

5 

148 

44.94 

45.43 

Eldridge  Park 

5 

156 

41.54 

43.10 

Slackwood 

8 

222 

43.24 

42.40 

Lawrence  Township 

20 

566 

45.01 

45.01 

The  Children's  Home  School  is  not  included  in  this  table. 

The  cost  figures  in  the  first  column  are  obtained  from  the  actual  salaries  paid. 

The  figures  in  the  second  column  are  obtained  from  the  average  salary  paid  in  the 

district. 


Other  Individual 
School  Costs 


The  system  of  accounting  in  Lawrence  Township 
does  not  permit  of  detailed  costs  by  individual 
schools  on  other  items  of  expenditure.  Wherever 
such  costs  have  been  secured  for  large  numbers  of  schools,  it  has  be- 
come clear  that  costs  of  operation,  maintenance  and  administration 
are  lower  on  a  per  pupil  unit  basis  for  the  large  school  plant  than  they 
are  for  a  series  of  small  school  plants  which  have  equal  problems.  A 
higher  standard  of  maintenance  and  operation,  as  well  as  lor  admin- 
istration, will  raise  costs  in  the  new  buildings  proposed.  The  educa- 
tional and  social  results  secured  will,  however,  be  so  much  greater 
than  what  are  now  being  secured  that  the  increased  cost  will  bring 
adequate  returns. 


PART  VIII 

ADMINISTRATION  AND  ORGANIZATION 

The  schools  of  Lawrence  Township  are  administered  by  a  board 
of  nine  workers,  three  of  whom  are  chosen  at  each  annual  school  meet- 
ing. Each  member  holds  office  for  a  term  of  three  years.  The  cleri- 
cal duties  of  the  board  are  performed  by  a  paid  district  clerk.  The 
board  has  three  standing  committees  which  are  appointed  annually 
by  the  board.  These  committees  are — The  Teachers:  Buildings  and 
Grounds:  and  Finance.  The  number  of  times  that  matters  have  been 
referred  to  and  reported  from  these  standing  committees  during  the 
years  1920-1921  is  as  follows: — 

Committee  Referred  Reported 

Buildings  and  Grounds  11                         12 

Teachers  4                         16 
Finance                                                                    26 


Total  15  54 

The  reports  from  the  committee  on  "Finance"  are  approximately  50% 
of  the  total  number  of  reports  made  during  this  period. 

The  members  of  the  Board  of  Education  have  been  very  faithful 
in  their  attendance  at  board  meetings,  the  average  attendance  for  a 
ten  year  period  being  6.9  members,  as  shown  in  Table  LVIII. 

The  size  of  the  board  is  too  large,  considering  the  number  of  peo- 
ple in  the  township  and  the  size  of  the  school  problem.  A  board  of 
,  five  members,  serving  overlapping  periods  for  five  years,  would  suffice 
for  the  township.  It  is  even  conceivable  that  a  board  of  three  mem- 
bers would  be  satisfactory,  especially  so  if  the  actual  administrative 
problems  are  handled  by  the  supervising  principal. 

„            /•  r>      •  In  Table  LIX  will  be  found  a  summarv  of  the 

I ypes  of  Jjusiness  .                                 ' 

'               ,  work  of  the  board  during  the  last  fourteen  meet- 

I  ransacted  .            ^.                   ^ .      .                           111 

,      ,     ri        7  ings.      i  he  types  of  busmess  transacted  have  been 

by  the  Board  ......                .                            .    ,         .        ,    . 

divided  into  routine  matters  and  those  involving 

discussion  of  the  formation  or  adoption  of  a  school  policy.  Ninety- 
three  per  cent  of  the  business  transacted  has  been  of  a  routine  nature, 
apparently,  in  most  cases,  of  the  kind  which  should  be  left  in  the  hands 


110 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 
TABLE  LVIII 


Number  of  Meetings  and  Attendance  of  the  Members  of  the  Board  of 
Education  from  1912  to  1921  Inclusive 


Year 

Number  of 

Total 

Average 

Meetings 

Attendance 

Attendance 

1912 

13 

94 

7.2 

1913 

12 

82 

6.8 

1914 

9 

61 

6.7 

1915 

13 

88 

6.7 

1916 

11 

67 

6.1 

1917 

11 

68 

6.1 

1918 

9 

57 

6.3 

1919 

12 

83 

6.9 

1920 

12 

98 

8.1 

1921 

14 

107 

7.6 

Total 

116 

SOo 

6.9 

of  a  chief  administrative  officer.  Of  the  fourteen  items  involving 
educational  policy,  ten  were  proposed  on  the  initiative  of  the  board, 
one  on  the  initiative  of  the  supervising  principal,  two  on  the  initiative 
of  the  county  superintendent,  and  one  on  the  initiative  of  the  tax 
payer.  When  a  board  of  nine  members  endeavors  to  assume  respon- 
sibility for  routine  matters,  it  is  questionable  whether  a  program  of 
education  can  be  satisfactorily  advanced. 

^  .J  The  average  number  of  votes  cast  for  the  ten- 

Lommuntty  Interest  .    .        ,       ,      .         r     i      1 1         , 

•     D       J  ri    .•  year  period  at  the  election  of  school  board  mem- 

in  Board  LLections       ,  _,,  , 

bers    was    37.      Ihe    average    number   cast    at 

meetings  where  an  annual  budget  was  proposed  was  38  The  average 
number  of  votes  cast  when  resolutions  involving  building  projects 
were  presented  to  the  people  for  consideration  was  66.  At  no  dis- 
trict meeting,  with  the  exception  of  a  special  district  meeting  held  in 
May  191 2,  has  any  large  number  of  voters  appeared  for  the  purpose 
of  casting  votes,  thereby  showing  their  interest  in  school  matters. 

Table  LX  gives  the  distribution  of  votes  cast  for  all  public  meet- 
ings since  March  191 1.  The  total  population  of  Lawrence  Township 
for  1920  has  been  shown  to  be  3,686.  It  is  evident  that  the  voters  of 
the  community  must  assume  a  more  direct  responsibility  for  the  bet- 
terment of  their  schools  than  they  have  assumed  in  the  past. 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jcry^etj 
TABLE  LIX 


II 


Types  ov  Business  Transacted  by  the  Board  op  Education  During  the 

Year  1921 


Types  of  Business 

Dale 

Rrutine  Matters 

Methods  of  Policy 

Total 

Jan. 3. 1921 

13 

1 

14 

Feb.  7.  1921 

10 

10 

.Mar.  7,  1921 

l.'i 

15 

Apr.  4,  1921 

•>•) 

1 

23 

May  2,  1921 

19 

19 

June  (i,  1921 

21 

21 

.Inly  f),  1921 

If) 

1 

Id 

.liily  19,  1921 

3 

2 

5 

Aug.  1,  1921 

IS 

IS 

Sept.  (j,  1921 

12 

1 

13 

Oct.  3,  1921 

11 

■) 

13 

Nov.  7,  1921 

19 

2 

21 

Dec.  5,  1921 

11 

3 

14 

Dec.  13,  1921 

t 

1 

S 

Total 

196 

H 

210 

Percentage 

92.9 

7.1 

100 

The  0-ffi.ce  of  the 
District  Clerk 


Tlie  district  clerk  is  the  paid  secretary  of  the  Board 
of  Education.     He  may  be  elected  from  among  the 
members  of  the  board,  or  may  be  from  outside  the 
board.     The  clerk's  duties,  as  specified  by  law,  are  as  follows: — 
"He  shall  record  in  a  suitable  book  all  proceedings  of  the 
Board  of  Education,  of  the  annual  school  meetings  and  of 
special  school  meetings.     He  shall  pay  out  by  orders  on  the 
custodian  of  the  school  moneys  of  the  school  district,  and  in 
the  manner  prescribed  by  all,  all  school  moneys  of  the  dis- 
trict.    He  shall  keep  a  correct  and  detailed  account  of  all  the 
expenditures  of  school  moneys  in  the  district,  and  shall  report 
to  the  board  at  each  regular  meeting  the  amount  tor  which 
warrants  shall  have  been  drawn  since  the  date  of  his  last 
report,  the  accounts  against  which  said  warrants  shall  have 
been  drawn,  and  the  balance  to  the  credit  of  each  account. 


112 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 
TABLE  LX 


The  Number  of  Votes  Cast  for  Members  of  the  Board  of   Education, 

Budget,  and  Resolutions  at  the  District  School  Meetings  of 

Lawrence  Toa\"nship  from  1911  to  1920  Inclusive 


Date 

Votes  Cast 

For  Members 

For  Budget 

For  Resolutions 

Mar.  21,  1911 

55 

62 

62 

Mar.  19,  1912 

80 

65 

Apr.  30,  1912 

94 

May  28,  1912 

136 

Aug.  22,  1912 

26 

Mar.  18,  1913 

Xo  data 

Mar.  17,  1914 

9 

9 

May  19,  1914 

35 

Mar.  IC),  1915 

32 

48 

48 

Mar.  21,  1916 

84 

84 

84 

Apr.  18,   1916 

90 

Mar.  20,  1917 

12 

12 

Mar.  19,  1918 

27 

27 

Feb.  IS,  1919 

11 

Mar.  18,  1919 

13 

Mar.  24,  1920 

24 

24 

24 

Average  of  Vote  Cast 

37.3 

3S.0 

66.6 

At  each  annual  school  meeting,  he  shall  present  his  record 
books  and  his  accounts  for  public  inspection,  and  shall  make 
a  statement  of  the  financial  condition  of  the  district.  He 
shall  post  notices  of  the  annual  and  special  meetings  of  the 
legal  voters — and  during  the  month  of  July  in  each  year  he 
shall  present  to  the  Board  of  Education  a  detailed  report  of 
the  financial  transactions  of  the  Board  during  the  preceding 
school  year;  and  file  a  copy  thereof  with  the  County  Super- 
intendent  of   Schools. In   case   any   money    shall    be 

ordered  to  be  raised  by  special  tax,  the  district  clerk  shall 

make  out  and  sign  a  certificate  thereof, ,  that  the 

same  is  correct ,  and  deliver  the  same  to  the  Board  of 


Taxation  of  the  county- 


-,  and  shall  send  a  duplicate  to 


the  County  Superintendent  of  Schools." 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 


113 


For  this  service,  the  board  pays  ^500.  a  year.  In  a  school  sys- 
tem where  only  twenty  teachers  form  the  staff,  it  is  questionable 
whether  both  district  clerk  and  a  supervising  principal  are  needed. 
It  is  recommended  that  both  these  offices  be  combined  and  that  one 
man  be  placed  in  charge  to  perform  the  duties  of  both  positions.  The 
reports,  as  recorded  in  the  minutes,  are  so  brief  that  it  is  difficult  to 

Chart  No.  22 


SCHOOL   MEETING    OF 
LEGAL  VOTERS 


COVV.Ti    SUPER n.'TENDENT   OF 
EDUCATION 


BUILDING 
COMMITTEE 


The  Present  Administrative  Organization  of  the 
Lawrence  Township  Schools. 

determine  of  what  the  reports  of  the  supervising  principal,  truant 
officer,  medical  inspector  or  chairman  of  the  standing  committees 
actually  consist.  Reports,  giving  in  detail  many  of  the  significant 
elements  included  in  this  study  of  the  township  schools,  should  be 
required  from  the  supervising  principal  and  other  officers  from  time  to 
time.  These  reports  should  be  in  such  detail  that  the  Board  of  Edu- 
cation may  rest  assured  that  the  proper  progress  is  being  made  in  the 
school  system.  All  of  the  evidence  which  has  been  collected  in  this 
report  tends  to  the  conclusion  that  no  careful  analysis  has  been  made 
of  any  of  the  significant  problems  involved  in  the  development  of  the 


114 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 


local  school  system.  Had  such  reports  been  made,  it  is  very  clear 
that  the  teachers  would  not  be  content  with  the  low  ratings  attained 
by  the  pupils  on  the  tests  which  had  been  given. 

rj,,  ^  J  .  ,  There  are  three  administrative  officers  appointed 
1  ke  Jbducational     ,        ,      ,         ,  .  .  ..,,., 

^jj.  by  the   board,   a  supervising  principal,  a  medical 

inspector,  and  a  truant  officer,  who  are  responsible 
to  the  board  and  co-ordinate  in  authority.  As  far  as  could  be  ascer- 
tained, the  present  supervising  principal  has  authority  primarily  in 

Chart  No.  23 


JAHITORS 


STATE   BOARD  OF 
EDUCATION 


SCHOO-   UMTING   OF 
LEGAL   VOTERS 


nXJCMIONAL 
PiVISIOM 


yK. 


STATE    COlClISSIOlfEP   OF 
EDUCATION 


— LEGAL 
DIVISION 


EUSItltoa 

niYtJlQji 


OOtJNTY   SUPERINTENDENT   OF 
EDUCATION 


BOARD 
OF 

EDUCATION 


ALSO 
SUPERVISING    DISTRICT 
PRIHCIfAL         riTOK 


Proposed  Relationships  in  Administrative  Organization 
of  Lawrence  Township  Schools. 


the  field  of  supervision.  From  the  nature  of  the  work  which  the 
pupils  are  doing,  there  is  little  evidence  that  this  authority  is  at  all 
being  exercised.  In  a  school  system  which  employs  only  twenty 
teachers,  the  supervising  principal  should  also  be  responsible  for  all 
administrative  details,  including  supervision  of  the  janitors.  The 
conditions  in  the  school  buildings  are  such  that  there  is  little  evidence 
that  any  of  this  responsibility  has  been  assumed  by  the  supervising 
principal. 


Lawrence  Township,  New  Jersey 

TABLE  LXI 
Per  Cent  of  Loss  in  Possible  Attendance 


115 


Years 

Schools 

1915-16 

1916-17 

1917-18 

1918-19 

1919-20 

1920-21 

Lawre^nceville 

20.4 

12.2 

19.9 

4.9 

14.6 

11.5 

Slackwood 

16.8 

20.2 

12,3 

14.2 

12.9 

14.3 

Eldridge  Park 

21.1 

16.3 

18.6 

17.9 

21.5 

12.7 

Rosedale 

19.3 

9.1 

24.8 

18.5 

22.7 

15. 

Clark.sville 

14.6 

16.3 

25.2 

14.9 

20.6 

9.8 

Medical  Inspection 
and  Enforcement 
of  Attendance 


According  to  the  minutes  of  the  Board  of  Education,  it  is  the 
custom  of  the  supervising  principal  to  make  monthly  reports  to  the 
board.  The  following  matters  were  reported  by  him  in  the  last  ten 
months: — enrolment,  average  daily  attendance,  examination  grades, 
overcrowded  rooms  and  minor  details.  There  is  no  evidence  of  any 
comprehensive  or  continuous  program  of  reporting  and  no  evidence 
that  any  modern  educational  diagnosis  had  been  made.  If  this  type 
of  service  cannot  be  rendered  by  the  supervising  principal,  it  is  ques- 
tionable whether  the  community  gets  adequate  return  for  the  money 
expended  on  supervision. 

The  mere  medical  inspection  of  children  as  it  is 
at  present  carried  out  has  little  value.  The 
work  of  the  truant  officer  is  limited  to  special 
services  requested  by  the  Board  of  Education. 
The  per  cent  of  loss  in  possible  attendance  over  a  period  of  years  is 
shown  in  Table  LXI.  When  expressed  in  dollars  and  cents  which 
might  have  been  paid  to  the  local  school  system  by  the  state  if  chil- 
dren had  attended,  this  loss  is  considerable.  Without  doubt,  the  best 
policy  that  could  be  pursued  in  Lawrence  Township  would  be  the 
selection  of  a  nurse  for  the  purpose  of  doing  much  of  the  work  of  medi- 
cal inspection  and  also  for  the  purpose  of  acting  as  the  truant  officer. 
Such  a  combined  service  seems  most  desirable  where  there  are  so  few 
children  and  where  both  services  are  at  times  essential. 
^  As  aggregate  days'  attendance  is  one  source  of  income  and 

r,         ,     as  there  is  no  way  of  checking  against  the  complete  enforce- 
Record  ,    ,  ,  , 

ment  of  the  attendance  laws,  except  as  a  permanent  census 

record  is  maintained,  it  is  highly  essential  that  such  a  census  program 

be  developed.     This  program  can  readily  be  carried  out  without  any 


116  Survey  of  Public  School  System 

additional  aid,  providing  the  supervising  principal  and  teachers  co- 
operate in  doing  the  work. 

J.      .         Until  recently,  the  board  employed  only  one  full-time  jan- 
I  antloT     .  .      .  r     J  J  J 

f,      .         itor.     The  janitors  at  the  two  smaller  grade  schools  were 

06TVXC6  . 

employed  for  part  time  and  the  one-room  teachers  received 
$25.00  to  pay  for  janitor  service.  Within  the  last  few  weeks,  the 
Eldridge  Park  School  was  closed  for  nine  days,  thus  causing  a  loss  of 
state  money.  Teachers  were  paid  for  this  period  and  the  cost  of  re- 
placement of  heating  apparatus  was  incurred  because  of  the  failure  to 
provide  proper  janitorial  service.  Better  janitorial  service,  with  ade- 
quate supervision,  must  be  secured. 

„  ,  ,  The  records  and  reports  of  the  school  system  should 
Records  and     ,      ,  .  r   ,,,,•,  ,•  -4.,  , 

n  be  kept  m  one  ot  the  school  buildmgs.      1  hose  that  are 

Reports  ....     ,  ^  ,  .     ^  ,    ,     r 

mamtamed  m  Lawrence  iownship  are,  as  a  whole,  far 

below  the  standard.  This  refers  equally  as  well  to  the  financial  records 
and  the  educational  records.  A  very  intensive  study  of  individual  pupils 
is  possible  where  one  supervising  principal  has  charge  of  such  a  small 
number  of  children  as  are  found  in  the  Lawrence  Township  schools. 
This  intensive  study  requires  a  most  accurate  system  of  recording  and 
reporting.  Such  a  system  involves  slight  expense,  but  requires  time 
and  a  knowledge  of  modern  methods  in  order  that  good  results  may 
be  secured.  The  cost  records  should  be  so  maintained  that  costs  bv 
schools  may  become  available.  With  only  slight  additional  labor, 
costs  by  grades  could  also  be  secured  by  the  accounting  officer. 

Charts  No.  22  and  No.  23  show  the  present  and  proposed  adminis- 
trative organizations  of  the  local  board  of  education.  The  proposed 
organization  suggests  the  elimination  of  committees,  the  reduction  of 
the  size  of  the  board,  the  consolidation  of  the  office  of  the  supervising 
officer  and  district  clerk  and  the  placement  of  all  other  officers  and 
employees  under  the  direct  supervision  of  the  supervising  principal. 


PART  IX 
SUMMARY  OF  FINDINGS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS 

I — The  school  system  of  Lawrence  Township  is  poorly  organized  and 
poorly  administered.  Responsibility  is  not  fixed,  nor  is  efficient 
service  required. 

2 — The  teachers  of  Lawrence  Township  are  well  paid,  and  as  a  group, 
their  class  burdens  are  not  too  heavy. 

3 — The  small  size  of  the  school  buildings  presents  a  serious  educa- 
tional handicap  because  of  the  necessity  of  keeping  two  grades 
in  the  same  classroom. 

4 — ^The  children  of  Lawrence  Township  are  intellectually  capable,  but 
in  their  classroom  work  they  are  not  doing  as  well  as  children  of 
similar  ages  or  grades  are  doing  elsewhere.  In  fact,  the  results 
of  the  achievement  tests  should  arouse  both  the  community  and 
the  teaching  staif  toward  betterment  of  the  educational  work  that 
is  being  done. 

5 — A  nine  year  elementary  school  has  been  developed  without  bring- 
ing adequate  returns. 

6 — ^The  great  amount  of  retardation  and  the  great  number  of  over-age 
children  are  serious  factors  in  the  elimination  of  children  from 
schools. 

7 — The  township  sends  a  relatively  small  number  of  children  to  high 
school. 

8 — Children  should  be  encouraged  to  stay  in  school  much  longer  than 
they  have  been  doing. 

9 — For  a  period  of  time,  it  would  be  cheaper  for  Lawrence  Township 
to  continue  to  send  the  upper  three  years  of  the  high  school  to 
Princeton  and  Trenton,  as  they  have  been  doing  in  the  past  than 
to  plan  a  separate  high  school  building. 

lo — The  recording  and  repofting  system,  both  financial  and  educa- 
tional, fails  to  conform  to  modern  standards. 

II — Proper  standards  of  cleanliness  are  not  maintained  in  the  present 
buildings. 

12 — The  school  buildings  are  inadequate  to  meet  present  needs  as 
well  as  totally  inadequate  to  meet  any  continued  growth  in  the 
community. 


118  Survey  of  Public  School  System 

13 — The  community  is  a  growing  community,  with  a  rather  stable 
rural  population  and  with  the  increases  taking  place  in  the  Slack- 
wood,  Eldridge  Park  and  Lawrenceville  sections. 

14 — The  costs  of  education  in  Lawrence  Township  are  not  excessive  as 
compared  to  what  other  communities  are  finding  it  necessary  to 
pay  in  order  to  maintain  a  good  school  system.  Measured  in 
terms  of  the  success  at  present  being  attained  in  the  Lawrence 
Township  schools,  the  costs  are,  without  doubt,  excessive. 


RECOMMENDATIONS 

•  All  members  of  the  community  must  take  a  more  active  interest 
in  the  development  of  the  local  schools.  The  Board  of  Education 
should  become  purely  a  directing  body  and  should  give  full  adminis- 
trative responsibility  to  a  capable  administrative  officer. 

The  program  of  measurement  of  achievements  should  be  extended 
to  the  point  where  the  Board  of  Education  is  being  constantly  in- 
formed regarding  the  progress  children  are  making. 

The  children  of  all  of  the  schools  should  be  reclassified  with  an 
effort  to  reduce  the  wide  variations  in  grades. 

The  program  of  measurement  of  the  intelligence  of  children,  and 
comparison  of  achievement  with  intelligence  standards,  should  be 
continued. 

A  new  building  should  be  planned  in  the  vicinity  of  Lawrence- 
ville  to  take  care  of  grades  i  to  9. 

A  new  building  at  Bakers  Basin  should  be  begun  with  an  initial 
provision  of  three  classrooms. 

A  new  building  must  be  planned  in  the  Eldridge  Park  section. 

When  new  buildings  are  planned,  sites  of  six  to  ten  acres  should 
be  chosen. 

Changes  should  be  made  in  the  educational  organization,  elimi- 
nating the  reception  grade,  substituting  therefor  a  kindergarten  in 
the  larger  schools  and  beginning  a  junior  high  school  program  for  the 
children  of  the  7th,  8th  and  9th  years. 

Reports  should  be  required  of  the  administrative  officer  at  such 
intervals  as  to  assure  the  community  that  its  school  system  is  mak- 
ing the  progress  which  has  been  found  possible  in  other  well  organized 
and  administered  school  systems. 

The  recommendations  made  cannot  be  carried  out  on  the  basis  of 
the  present  appropriations  which  are  being  made  for  education.  The 
proposed  new  buildings  will  add  to  maintenance  and  operation  cost. 

In  Table  LXII  are  shown  estimates  of  pupil  growth  and  possible 
cost  changes.  The  indicated  increase  in  total  current  expense  as  well 
as  the  addition  for  new  buildings  are  factors  to  be  expected  where  edu- 
cational improvement  is  desired. 


120 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 
TABLE  LXII 
Estimates  of  Pupil  Growth  and  Cost  Changes 


Total  Expenditures 

Total  Expenditures  within  District 

Tuition  Fees 

Transportation  (Tuition  Pupils) 

Total  Elementary  Average  Daily  Attendance 
Elementary  Pupils  sent  to  other  Districts 

High  School  Pupils    

Cost  of  Elem.  Pupils  (Aver.  Daily  Attendance^ 
Cost  Per  Tuition  Pupil  (Tuition  &  Trans.) 


1920-21 


$51,198 

42,868 

6,342 

1,987 

592 

8 

72 

72 

104 


1921-22 


55,030 

44,280 

8,200* 

2,550* 

615 

8 

77 

72 

130 


1922- 
23 


57,330 

46,080 

8,600 

2,650 

640 

8 

82 

72 

130 


1923-24 
(with  new 
Building) 


62,980 

56,000 

5,000 

1,980 

700** 

8 

50 

80 

130 


Xew  Principal  and  Interest  for  New  Building $6,000  to  $12,000 

Total 868,980  to  $74,980 


*  Estimates 

**If  the  9th  grade  is  included 


TABLE  OF  CONTENTS 

Part  Page 

I.  POPULATION  STUDIES 1 

Growth  in  Townships  and  Boroughs  of  Mercer  County I 

The  Distribution  of  Population 2 

The  Size  of  Farms 2 

Composition  of  Population 6 

The  Present  Schools  of  Lawrence  Township 6 

Relation  Between  Total  Population  and  Public  School  Population  7 
Relation  Between  School  Enrolment  and  Average  Daily  Attend- 
ance    12 

Average  Daily  Attendance 12 

II.  WEALTH  AND  SCHOOL  SUPPORT 13 

Comparisons  on  the  Basis  of  Wealth 16 

Lawrence  Township'    Position  in  the  County 21 

State  Comparison 21 

Bonded  Indebtedness 21 

III.  CLASSIFICATION  AND  PROGRESS  OF  CHILDREN 25 

Enrolment  by  Grades 27 

Reception  Grade 29 

Overlapping  in  Age  Groups 30 

Variation  in  Over-age  Conditions  Over  a  Period  of  Years 31 

Grade  Progress  Studies 36 

Promotions  and  Non-promotions 40 

Failures  by  Subjects 42 

High  School  Enrolment 43 

Enrolment — Grades  7  to  12 45 

IV.  TEACHERS  IN  LAWRENCE  TOWNSHIP 47 

Teaching  Staff 47 

Experience 47 

Training 47 

Salaries 53 

V.  THE  MEASUREMENT  OF  PUPIL  PERFORMANCE 55 

Tests ; 5.5 

Arithmetic 56 

Variability  in  Arithmetic  in  Lawrence  Township 58 

Quality  of  Handwriting 58 

Speed  of  Handwriting 60 

Recommendations  for  Writing 62 

Spelling 63 

Recommendations  for  Spelling 66 

English  Composition 66 

Reading 70 

Haggerty  Reading  Test,  Sigma  1 70 


122  Survey  of  Public  School  System 

Recommendations  on  Reading 75 

General  Intelligence 75 

National  Intelligence  Test 75 

Pressey  Primer  Scale 80 

Conclusions  on  Measurement  of  Achievement  and  Intelligence. . .  82 

VI.  THE   SCHOOL   BUILDINGS 84 

School  Building  Sites 88 

Building  Structures 89 

Decoration  and  Cleaning 90 

Care  of  Heating  Plant 90 

Classrooms  and  Equipment 90 

The  School  Building  Program 91 

New  Buildings 92 

Number  of  Junior  High  School  Children,  September  1922 93 

Proposed  New  Building  at  Lawrenceville 93 

School  Provisions  in  the  Clarksville  and  Bakers  Basin  Section ....  95 

The  Eldridge  Park  School 96 

VII.  SCHOOL  COSTS 97 

Comparative  Costs 97 

Other  Individual  School  Costs 108 

VIII.  ADMINISTRATION  AND  ORGANIZATION 109 

Types  of  Busine.ss  Transacted  by  the  Board 109 

Community  Interest  in  Board  Elections 110 

The  Office  of  the  District  Clerk Ill 

The  Educational  Officers 114 

Medical  Inspection  and  Enforcement  of  Attendance 116 

Census  Record 116 

Janitor  Service 117 

Records  and  Reports 117 

IX.  SUMMARY  OF  FINDINGS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS.  ...  118 

Recommendations 120 


INDEX  OF  TABLES 

Table  Page 

PART  I 

I.     Population  of  New  Jersey,   Mercer  County  and   Lawrence 

Township  From  1890  to  1920 1 

II.  Per  Cent  of  Increase  and  Decrease  in  Population  for  the  Dif- 
ferent Townships  and  Boroughs  of  Mercer  County,  New 
Jersey,  Over  a  Period  of  Years 3 

III.  Showing  Comparative  Number  of  Farms  for  Years  1914  and 

1921  Distributed  According  to  Size  and  Division 5 

IV.  The  Number  of  Rooms  and  Enrolment  in  the  Lawrence  Town- 

ship Schools 6 

V,  Relation  Between  Total  Population  and  Public  School  Popu- 
lation           7 

VI.     School  Enrolment  and  Attendance 10,  11 

PART  II 

VII.     Lawrence  Township  Compared  With  Other  School  Districts  of 

New  Jersey  in  Certain  Items  of  Finance 14,  15 

VIII.     Lawrence  Township  Ranked  in  Comparison  With  Other  School 
Districts  of  New  Jersey  With  Respect  to  the  Financial  Items 

Given  in  Table  VII. .  !^ 17 

IX.  Lawrence  Township  Compared  With  Other  School  Districts 
of  New  Jersey  in  Certain  Items  of  Finance.  Twenty  Dis- 
tricts   Which   Approximate    Lawrence    Township    in    Net 

Assessed  Valuation 18, 19 

X.  Lawrence  Township  Ranked  in  Comparison  With  Other 
School  Districts  of  New  Jersey  With  Respect  to  the  Finan- 
cial Items  Given  in  Table  IX 20 

XI.  Comparison  of  the'Lawrence  District  With  the  Other  Districts 
of  Mercer  County  with  the  Exception  of  the  City  of  Tren- 
ton  ' 22 

XII.     Comparison  of  Important  Financial  Items  of  Lawrence  Town- 
ship Over  a  Period  of  Years 24 

PART  III 

XIII.  Distribution  of  Age  Groups  for  the  Years  1910-11  and  1915- 

16  to  1921-22  With  Changes  and  Per  Cent  of  Change 26 

XIV.  Distribution  in  Percentages  of  Age  Groups  for  the  Years  1910- 

11  and  1915-16  to  1921-22 27 

XV.     Distribution  of  Pupils  by  Grades  for  the  Years  1910-11  and 

1915-16  to  1921-22 28 


124 


XVI. 

XVII. 

XVIII. 

XIX. 


XX. 
XXI. 


XXII. 
XXIII. 

XXIV. 


Survey  of  Public  School  System 

PercentciKe  Distribution  of  Pupils  by  Grades  for  the  Years 
1910-11  and  1915-16  to  1921-22 30 

Age-grade  Table  for  the  Elementary  Schools  of  Lawrence 
Township,  New  Jersey 32 

The  Percentage  Distribution  of  Pupils  of  Normal-age,  Over- 
age and  Under-age  for  the  Years  1910-11,  1915-16  to 
1921-22 33,34 

Showing  the  Number  of  Pupils  Who  Are  Less  Than  One  Year 
Over-age,  One  to  Two  Years  Over  age  and  Two  or  More 
Years  Over-age  for  the  Years  1910-11,  1915-16  to  1921-22, 
Inclusive 35 

Progress  Through  the  Grades 37 

Promotions,  Double  Promotions,  Non-promotions,  With- 
drawals and  Transfers  in  Lawrence  Township,  Mercer 
County,  New  Jersey,  Based  on  Enrolment  in  Each  Grade 
at  End  of  Year  1911,  1917,  1918,  1919,  1920  and  1921 40,41 

Failures  by  Subjects 42 

A  Comparison  Between  the  High  School  Enrolment  and  the 
Total  Enrolment  for  the  Given  Districts  in  Mercer  County       44 

Comparison  of  Pupil  Enrolment  of  Lawrence  Township,  Mer- 
cer County,  in  Grades  7  to  12  Inclusive  for  School  Years 
1920-21  and  1921-22 46 


PART  IV 

XXV.     Distribution  of  Salaries  and  Experience  for  Elementary  School 

Teachers,  Lawrence  Township,  Mercer  County,  New  Jersey         48 
XXVI.     Comparison    of    Total    Experience    of    Elementary    School 

Teachers 49 

XXVII.     Distribution  of  Salaries  and  Years  of  Training  Beyond  Grade 

8  of  Lawrence  Township  Elementary  School  Teachers 51 

XXVIII.     Comparison  of  Preparation  of  Elementary  School  Teachers  in 

Mercer  County  Townships 52 

XXIX.     Comparative  Salary  Schedules 54 


PART  V 

XXX.     Median  Scores  on  Woody  Arithmetic  Test-Series  A  Compared 

With  Woody's  Standard  Medians 56 

XXXI.     Median  Scores  on  Woody  Arithmetic  Test — Series  A  Compared 

by  Grade  with  Medians  of  Other  Schools 57 

XXXII.     Comparison   of  the  Schools   in   Lawrence  Town.ship  as  to 

Quality  of  Writing 59 

XXXIII.  Comparison  of  Lawrence  Township  Schools  With  Other  School 

Systems  as  to  Quality  of  Writing. 60 

XXXIV.  Comparison  of  the  Schools  in  Lawrence  Tlownship  as  to  Rate 

of  Writing 61 


XXXV. 
XXXVI. 

XXXVII. 

XXXVIII. 

XXXIX. 


XL. 

XLI. 
XLII. 

XLIII. 


Laivrence  Township,  New  Jersey  125 

Comparison  of  Lawrence  Township  Schools  With  Other  School 
Sy.'^tems  as  to  Rate  of  Writing 61 

Comparison  of  Schools  of  Lawrence  Township  in  Spelling  on 
the  Basis  of  the  Percentage  and  Average  Number  of  Words 
Spelled  Correctly  in  the  Entire  List  of  Words 64 

Spelling  Scores  for  the  Schools  of  Lawrence  Township,  Com- 
pared with  the  Standard  Score  on  the  Basis  of  the  Ten  Words 
of  Equal  Difficulty  for  the  Various  Grades 65 

Comparison  of  the  Spelling  Scores  of  the  Lawrence-  Township 
Schools  With  Various  Types  of  Schools  in  Virginia  on  the 
Basis  of  the  Standard  Score 65 

Composition  Scores  for  Lawrence  Township  Based  on  the 
Nassau  County  Supplement  to  the  Hillegas  Scale  Distributed 
by  Grades.  Schools,  and  Scores  and  Compared  with  Grade 
Standards  and  Accomj^lishments  in  other  School  Systems .  .  67-69 

Reading  Scores  for  Thorndike-McCall  Scale  "A"  for  Grades 
3  to  8,  Inclusive,  for  Lawrence  Township 72,73 

Scores  on  Haggerty  Reading  Test,  Sigma   1 74 

Scores  Obtained  on  the  National  Intelligence  Test  by  Grades 
3  to  8,  Inclusive,  of  Lawrence  Township 76-78 

Scores  on  Pressey  Primer  Scale,  for  Reception  and  First  and 
Second  Grades  of  Lawrence  Township 81 


PART  VI 

XLIV.     Final  Scores  Allotted  by  the  Judges  Using  the  Strayer-Engel- 

hardt  Rural  School  Building  Score  Card 86 

XLV,     Playground — Pupil  Enrolment  Basis 89 

XLVI.     Distribution  of  Children  by  Grades  and  Schools 91 

XLVII.     Children  to  be  Expected  at  Lawrenceville  if  Plant  is  Located 

There 95 

PART  VII 

Current  Expenditures  in  Lawrence  Township 98 

Cost  of  Elementary  Education  per  Pupil  in  Lawrence  Town- 
ship Based  on  Average  Daily  Attendance 100 

Percentage  of  Current  Expenditures  for  the  Various  Distribu- 
tions of  Cost  in  Lawrence  Township  for  eight  years 100 

Current  Expenditures  per  Pupil  in  Average  Daily  Attendance 
in  Lawrence  and  Ten  Other  Townships  in  New  Jersey  Plus 
the  Cost  of  Those  Living  in  the  District  but  Attending 

School  in  Other  Districts 101 

LII.     Total  Current  Expenditures  per  Pupil  for  Eight  Years  in 
Lawrence  and  Ten  Other  Townships  in  New  Jersey  Based  on 

Average  Daily  Attendance 102 

LIII.     Cost  of  Elementary  Schools  for  1920-21 104 


XLVIII. 
XLIX. 


LI. 


126  Survey  of  Public  School  System 

LIV.  Cost  of  Instruction 105 

LV.  Cost  of  Administration 107 

LVI.  Cost  of  Operation  and  Maintenance  of  Plant 107 

LVII.  Cost  for  Salaries  of  Teachers 108 

PART  VIII 

LVIII.     Number  of  Meetings  and  Attendance  of  the  Members  of  the 

Board  of  Education  from  1912  to  1921,  Inclusive 110 

LIX.     Types  of  Business  Transacted  by  the  Board  of  Education 111 

LX.     The  Number  of  Votes  Cast  for  Members  of  the  Board  of  Edu- 
cation, Budget  and  Resolutions  at  the  District  School  Meet- 
ings of  Lawrence  Township  from  1911  to  1920  Inclusive. .  .      112 
LXI.     Per  Cent  of  Loss  in  Possible  Attendance 116 

PART  IX 
LXII.     Estimates  of  Pupil  Growth  and  Cost  Changes 121 


INDEX  OF  CHARTS 
Chart  Page 

PART  I 

1.  Showing  the  Per  Cent  Which  the  Public  School  Enrolment  is  of  the 

Total  Population  in  5  Year  Intervals  from  1900-1920 8 

PART  II 

2.  Comparison  of  Per  Cent  of  Increase  in  Net  Valuation,  Tax  Rate  and 

State  Apportionment  in  Lawrence  Township 23 

PART  III 

3.  Distribution  of  Pupils  in  Lawrence  Township  by  Ages 29 

4.  Changes  in  Enrolment  by  Grades 31 

5.  Showing  the  Percentage  of  Pupils  Who  are  of  Normal-age,  Over- age  and 

Under-age  in  the  Schools  of  LawTence  Township 34 

6.  Showing  the  Percentage  of  Pupils  in  the  Elementarj^  Schools  of  Law- 

rence Township,  Mercer  County,  New  Jersey,  Who  Have  Made 
Rapid,  Normal  and  Slow  Progress  in  Grades  Reception  to  Eighth 
Inclusive 39 

7.  Showing  the  Percentage  of  Pupils  in  the  Elementary  Schools  of  Lawrence 

Township,  Mercer  County,  New  Jersey,  Who  Have  Made  Rapid, 
Normal  and  Slow  Progress  in  the  Grades  I-VIII,  Inclusive 39 

8.  Showing  the  Percentage  of  Promotions  and  Double  Promotions  in  the 

Elementary  Schools  of  Lawrence  Township 41 

9.  Showing  the  Percentage  of  Failures  by  Subjects  in  the  Elementary 

Schools 43 

10.  Comparison  of  Pupil  Enrolment  for  School  Years  1920-21  and  1921-22       45 

PART  IV 

11.  Showing    Variability    of    Length    of  Service  of  Elementary  School 

Teachers   in  Lawrence  Township  1921-22 49 

12.  Comparison  of  Total  Years'  Experience  with  Experience  in  Lawrence 

Township 50 

13.  Comparison  of  Teachers'  Salaries  in  Elementary  Schools  in  Lawrence 

I'ownship  with  Those  of  Other  Townships  in  Mercer  County 53 

14.  Distribution  of  Salaries  Paid   the  Teachers  of   Lawrence  Township 

1921-22: 54 

PART  V 

15.  Distribution  of  Scores  Made  on  the  National  Intelligence  Tests 79 


128  Survey  of  Public  School  System 

PART  VI 

16.  Strayer-Engelhardt  Score  Card  for  Rural  School  Buildings 85 

17.  Total  Scores  Allotted  the  Five  Buildings  of  Lawrence  Township  on  the 

Strayer-Engelhardt  Score  Card  for  Rural  School  Buildings 87 

.  PART  VII 

18.  Showing  the  Comparison   in   Lawrence  Township  from    1913-1921 

Between  Expenditures  Within  the  District,  Total  Current  Expen- 
ditures, Average  Daily  Attendance  Within  the  District  and  Total 
Average  Daily  Attendance 99 

19.  Chart  Showing  the  Rankings  for  Six  Years  of  Lawrence  and  Ten  Other 

New  Jersey  Townships  on  the  Basis  of  Current  Expenditures  for 

All  School  Purposes  Per  Pupil  in  Average  Daily  Attendance 102 

20.  Chart  Showing  the  Rankings  for  Eight  Years  of  Lawrence  and  Ten 

Other  Townships  in  New  Jersey  on  the  Basis  of  Expenditures  in 

the  Elementary  Schools  per  Pupil  in  Average  Daily  Attendance . . .      103 

21.  Chart  Showing  the  Ranking  for  Eight  Years  of  Lawrence  and  Ten 

Other  Townships  in  New  Jersey  on  the  Basis  of  Expenditures  for 
Instruction  per  Pupil  in  Average  Daily  Attendance 106 

PART  VITI 

22.  Present    Administrative    Organization    of   the   Lawrence   Township 

Schools 113 

23.  Proposed  Relationships  in  Administrative  Organization  of  Lawrence 

Township  Schools 115 


INDEX  OF  MAPS 
Map  Page 

PART  I 

1.  The  Approximate  Residential  Location  of  Each  Family,  January  1922        4 

2.  Approximate  Residence  of  Each  Child  Enrolled  in  the  Elementary 

Schools,  January  11,  1922 9 

PART  VI 

3.  Approximate  Residence  of  Each  Child  in  6th,  7th  and  8th  Grades.  ...        94 


cy 


.7 


-n 


V 


2: 


'yokw 


^^■mmyim^     %a3AiNiimv 


^ 


^ 


'"^o-m 


iv> 


v\ins-ANr,firr> 


c 


.    V 


^\\M!RRARYQr 


^ 


^ME'UNIVFRi"/A 


-n  t_ 


$01^'^'^        -^/^JIJAINQ^VW 


•■^ 


^V-        '^.!/0JllV3JO>' 


s; 


■VaiMNfl  ^VW"^ 


!  nc  \  k;rri  /-r 


i->  r    r  I  i  \  r  ,"\T 


f>  r   /"  A  t  1  r  r\  n 


iJ  Or 


% 


Y'- 


.^ 


>&A(JVU.ui^ 


>i. 


^ 

^ 


.^ncjAirrr 


s^ 


< 


<-~\ 
>- 


^        ^OFCAllFO/?^ 


^ 


iiii\^^       ^<?A{JvayiiiVv^ 


\\\EUNIVER%        ^^lOSANGElfj^ 


;!?-■ 


CO 


"y      o 


•^nmmm^ 


*=.    < 


o 


\ 


r^ 


vvlOSANGflfj> 


.NMllBRARY<9r         -^x 


^OdllVJ-JO'f^ 


>^HIBRARY6?/C 


>i 


y-. 


—    5  , 


5? 


>- 


M-i^ 


i5 


,vin^.w,fifj-. 


'^/ia]AiNn-3i\v 


-XI 

-< 


% 


V< 


r-n 


.?^ 


^ 


^\\F  I'N'IVFP^A 


^^AavyaiH^"^      ^(?Aiivaaii-i'^'^        <riiJONvsoi^- 


.N^ 


^OFCALIFO/?^^ 


,  \\\F  l'MVER5-/A 

>_   ;  -n 


,^WE•UNIVER% 


.V-lOSAMCElfj^. 

5 


rri  ^     "J 

I — •  i_fc_*       1 


%a3AINa3WV^ 
^V^lOSvVNCEL^r^ 


^t-LIBRARYQ^ . 


^ 


O 


'^<!/0Jl'lV>JO"^       ''''^ 


-<^- 


OFC/uii 


U/14;;:^ 


^v 


.# 


> 


io 


■i^'AQVQUi 


3  1158  00990  0266^  , 


,\IN 


I 


0^         o^lllBRARY^k, 


^•■ 


'.'jai\i^,riu> 


UC  SOUTHERN  REGIONAL  LIBRARY  FACILITY 


AA    000  637  570    3 

'^/i'dJAINil  ivaairi^- 


UNIVERS/A 


r-5 


— w                                                  — \ 

-'3 

^^\\EUNIVER% 

i]Al^ 

f* 

.:.o,FrA!iFa^'-. 

-■ 

^A\F  I'\'!VFPT.'>. 

.vins\N 

:z                                - 

LA-J 

> 

y 

%. 

> 
'^Aa3Al^ 

% 

.    1  nr  ,v  i 

re  fr. 

<^lll;;4-L'S!ll(9/: 

.it   HDD; 

<  CO 


.u,AINn-3Wv 


i 


>- 


\\\im\ms/A 


'/- 


^^ 


..^ 


■%>. 


rJtW 


4? 


cr 

'^Vr 

^\\\EI!N1VER% 

^[om 

c 

] 

CQ 

^WEUNIVERi-/^ 

C5  .                CP»   <b 

1 

